Kerouac and Buddhism(theamericanscholar.org)
theamericanscholar.org
Kerouac and Buddhism
https://theamericanscholar.org/kerouac-at-100/
93 comments
I'm just finishing On the Road. My impressions of it are somewhat mixed. When I started it, the language was so free and beautiful that I thought it was the best thing I had ever read. But then I found the celebration of alcoholism and substance abuse tedious. There are parts I found frustrating such as when Sal goes to New Orleans to visit Old Bull Lee (William S. Burroughs), but doesn't really describe the city which must have been pretty cool in 1947 before the hyper-tourism of today. Some of the conversations between Sal and Dean are really touching and some of my favorite parts of the book like when Dean talks about his outlaw father. He also brings Denver to life which I enjoyed. There are funny parts as when he takes on a job as a security guard in SF, the most unlikely of jobs for Sal Paradise.
I read both On The Road and The Dharma Bums as a student, when I was trying to figure out what to do with my life. I didn’t like On The Road much at all - I found the characters to be wildly irresponsible to the point of being just plain mean. But for some reason I decided to give Kerouac another go with The Dharma Bums, and it has probably had a bigger influence on my life than any other book.
Not so much because of the Buddhist concepts, which I didn’t care much about then, and still don’t, and Kerouac probably got wrong anyway. But the Bhuddist-lite concepts of appreciating nature, minimalism, independence, love, etc - experienced through the eyes of a very flawed main character who is just looking to find some peace and happiness in life - all really resonated with me and left a lasting impression. It would be fun to read that book again after so many years and see if it still resonates.
Not so much because of the Buddhist concepts, which I didn’t care much about then, and still don’t, and Kerouac probably got wrong anyway. But the Bhuddist-lite concepts of appreciating nature, minimalism, independence, love, etc - experienced through the eyes of a very flawed main character who is just looking to find some peace and happiness in life - all really resonated with me and left a lasting impression. It would be fun to read that book again after so many years and see if it still resonates.
Agree. But no author captures the sense of euphoria like Kerouac. Reading his prose can sometimes put you into a euphoric frenzy. But he will drag you down with him at times as well.
> But no author captures the sense of euphoria like Kerouac.
In that book only.
In that book only.
I personnaly did not like the book and found enjoying Scott Alexander's review quite a lot : https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/02/book-review-on-the-roa...
This review is perfect. I have always been totally and completely baffled by why people liked Kerouac and Ginsburg and company. They are awful people who go around doing incredibly awful things to everyone around them and they glorify it in writing. The writing isn't even good, you can find lots of people doing the same stuff able to write ecstatic justifications of it.
It says almost as much about the period (and the present day, I suppose), that these people could be held up as icons of anything except examples of people who society should probably imprison or exile or something.
It says almost as much about the period (and the present day, I suppose), that these people could be held up as icons of anything except examples of people who society should probably imprison or exile or something.
This review is brutal, I love it.
> On The Road is, most importantly, a picture of a high-trust society collapsing. And it’s collapsing precisely because the book’s protagonists are going around defecting against everyone they meet
It’s like the old cliche, “this is why we can’t have nice things.”
> On The Road is, most importantly, a picture of a high-trust society collapsing. And it’s collapsing precisely because the book’s protagonists are going around defecting against everyone they meet
It’s like the old cliche, “this is why we can’t have nice things.”
In that case you might enjoy this one: https://extradeadjcb.substack.com/p/3-the-electric-kool-aid-...
> Over the 21 years since then, I’ve asked many American Buddhist monks and professors of Buddhist studies how they were first introduced to Buddhism, and several gave me the same answer: Jack Kerouac.
Kerouac lead me too to multiple years of meditation practice. And I learned about On the Road in turn from Jim Morrison.
> Both books are about freedom. Both depict a way of living free from 20-year mortgages, nine-to-five jobs, conventional relationships, and family responsibilities. They present the liberating idea that you can do whatever you want with your life—what you want to do, not just what you are supposed to do.
This has been somewhat of a guiding principle for me I now realize. After reading On the Road in my late teens I might've spent maybe 25% of my years since doing a 9-5. Other things have influenced me as well obviously, but Kerouac has been a strong one, I've read all of his books I could get a hold of.
Kerouac lead me too to multiple years of meditation practice. And I learned about On the Road in turn from Jim Morrison.
> Both books are about freedom. Both depict a way of living free from 20-year mortgages, nine-to-five jobs, conventional relationships, and family responsibilities. They present the liberating idea that you can do whatever you want with your life—what you want to do, not just what you are supposed to do.
This has been somewhat of a guiding principle for me I now realize. After reading On the Road in my late teens I might've spent maybe 25% of my years since doing a 9-5. Other things have influenced me as well obviously, but Kerouac has been a strong one, I've read all of his books I could get a hold of.
The important takeaway is that Kerouac was writing about real people with real lives and real challenges they had to face during real rough times in America. The opening lines of "On the Road" tell you everything you need to know:
> I first met Dean not long after my wife and I split up. I had just gotten over a serious illness that I won't bother to talk about, except that it had something to do with the miserably weary split-up and my feeling that everything was dead.
Philosophy and religion and ethics and morality and leisure and work and goals and success and failure—this is not what Kerouac was really writing about. He was writing about people and relationships as if they were a musical composition to be played and listened to, with friends and lovers as instruments participating in the song of life.
He was not trying to achieve something but to fully live and experience the moment, to recapture the beauty and sadness of everything all at once. While Kerouac is more associated with Jazz, he was really an Impressionist, attempting to follow in the footsteps of Proust and Debussy.
> I first met Dean not long after my wife and I split up. I had just gotten over a serious illness that I won't bother to talk about, except that it had something to do with the miserably weary split-up and my feeling that everything was dead.
Philosophy and religion and ethics and morality and leisure and work and goals and success and failure—this is not what Kerouac was really writing about. He was writing about people and relationships as if they were a musical composition to be played and listened to, with friends and lovers as instruments participating in the song of life.
He was not trying to achieve something but to fully live and experience the moment, to recapture the beauty and sadness of everything all at once. While Kerouac is more associated with Jazz, he was really an Impressionist, attempting to follow in the footsteps of Proust and Debussy.
The important takeaway is that Kerouac was writing about real people with real lives and real challenges they had to face during real rough times in America.
While the people Kerouac wrote about were very real, I would just want to correct one thing. Kerouac wrote about people voluntarily or otherwise in the lower classes at a time (the 1950s) when things were relatively pretty good to be poor, you could get bare survival with little effort, the hassles were limited etc, that's why you could have amazing cultural creations coming out of that group, that's why a bit later the hippies were OK with voluntary poverty, etc.
While the people Kerouac wrote about were very real, I would just want to correct one thing. Kerouac wrote about people voluntarily or otherwise in the lower classes at a time (the 1950s) when things were relatively pretty good to be poor, you could get bare survival with little effort, the hassles were limited etc, that's why you could have amazing cultural creations coming out of that group, that's why a bit later the hippies were OK with voluntary poverty, etc.
This is an important point to me. These people were living (by relative standards, absolutely thriving) with very little income, coasting on what a post-war, peak-cheap-oil society could provide. Sure, in their writing they occasionally questioned the status quo. But reading it in retrospect just highlights how materially lucky they were to have those crazy experiences. Road tripping across the US in search of something greater is a privledge; if I met Dean Moriarty and Jack Kerouac today, I'd probably give them an "OK Boomer" eye roll.
You’re right, but if you study history, you’ll discover that every generation has their own take on this phenomenon.
#vanLife is just the latest version of it. Remember, Dean (Neil) transcended the Beats, became a member of the Merry Pranksters, and drove the bus for Kesey’s hippies who lived in it. It’s all connected.
#vanLife is just the latest version of it. Remember, Dean (Neil) transcended the Beats, became a member of the Merry Pranksters, and drove the bus for Kesey’s hippies who lived in it. It’s all connected.
I'm not sure why you think that, poverty was high enough that Johnson thought necessary to start a war on poverty in 1964.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_poverty
The thing that's not obvious this is that Johnson began the War On Poverty because having the lower classes in poverty wasn't politically acceptable in that time (partly because of the Cold War). In contrast, the lower classes not being able to afford rent or health care today is essentially acceptable.
This link [1] shows income inequality plateauing around 1950 and then rising sharply toward the late 1980s, reaching the levels of the 1920 at around 2010.
[1] https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide...
This link [1] shows income inequality plateauing around 1950 and then rising sharply toward the late 1980s, reaching the levels of the 1920 at around 2010.
[1] https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide...
In other words, the American social safety net was politically necessary only because of the threat of the socialist alternative
Especially before Reagan began gutting programs, American democracy was almost like socialism-lite. Plenty of work to be found that paid living wages. Well funded government institutions and social programs, plenty of straight up communist jobs programs too although they would never be referred to as such (I consider something like NASA to be a communist entity as the people own the means of production in this agency). Jobs programs. Etc. It was a big mistake we didn't restart the WPA after WWII however and really incentivized this idea of finding work within the public government instead of private industry that serves the public on a contractual basis.
Kerouac's demographic at the time (young healthy adults) do pretty well in relative poverty. Other people, like the elderly and families with kids, do much worse. The War on Poverty was focused on those groups.
Johnson might have had fine political skills, but his strategic sense and application of war was a disaster.
Because in the 60s if you were poor you were perhaps more likely to be housed in something like a single room occupancy building with a door that locks vs today where many people live in a nylon tent that can be looted in an instant.
Whenever I read governmental edicts like that - eg, a war on poverty - I take the exact opposite reading re what is being attempted.
"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." Gah!
"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." Gah!
and many get the same exact feeling from profit based answers. And both have many countless examples of huge failures.
And what many seem to conveniently forget, both have countless examples of absolute mind blowing successes. Both.
And what many seem to conveniently forget, both have countless examples of absolute mind blowing successes. Both.
Whether or not Kerouac was responsible for bringing Buddhism to the West, the hole in his version of Buddhism certainly resembles that in the usual Western manifestation. The West often perceives Buddhism as endlessly transgressive, "no rules", but Buddhism does in practice usually have rules, and one of the rules that made the list of the five most important rules -- just five -- is "don't get drunk". ("Don't lie" is the really hard one, though!)
Luckily for those of us in the modern day, much more has been translated from the Buddhist literature in the East than was available to the Beat Generation. I can't reasonably criticize someone's knowledge of Buddhism who learned about it in the '50s when I have Google and Wikipedia and Amazon, and there are probably more zen centers now, too.
Luckily for those of us in the modern day, much more has been translated from the Buddhist literature in the East than was available to the Beat Generation. I can't reasonably criticize someone's knowledge of Buddhism who learned about it in the '50s when I have Google and Wikipedia and Amazon, and there are probably more zen centers now, too.
If Kerouac piqued your interest in Buddhism, Gary Snyder is who you want to study.
The Alan Watts lectures are very entertaining and are all on YouTube (audio only).
The irony of the Beats is that while they may have turned lots of westerners onto Buddhism, they misinterpreted it terribly. When I was studying comparative religion as an undergrad I asked my professor of Japanese and Chinese religions if there were any American Buddhists that Chinese or Japanese buddhists viewed as detrimental to Buddhism and the western interpretation of Buddhism. She replied that there was only one, Alan Watts. He was largely disliked in Chinese and Japanese buddhist circles because he so completely misunderstood basic concepts and talked to eloquently about them.
I later went to study in India for a semester where I had more exposure to many of the words that American buddhists such as Watts, or Kerouac throw around. I've seriously studied Buddhism in both American and Indian universities, and read books written by Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Tibetan, Korean, and Nepalese buddhists. I'm not a buddhist, but I can say with certainty that the Beats really didn't understand buddhism. Instead I view them as coming from a western tradition of capitalizing on oriental concepts by introducing them to an ignorant western audience. I doubt they did this intentionally, and it's not like I hold some kind of grudge against Kerouac for getting so much wrong. And in a way, good on them for introducing so many westerners to buddhism.
If you are interested in Buddhism and your interest came from reading Beat literature, I highly suggest you seek out a teacher that does not draw their teaching from Beat sources, or anything that can be traced back to Alan Watts. Look for institutions that have been around for a while and that try to demystify complex concepts.
I later went to study in India for a semester where I had more exposure to many of the words that American buddhists such as Watts, or Kerouac throw around. I've seriously studied Buddhism in both American and Indian universities, and read books written by Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Tibetan, Korean, and Nepalese buddhists. I'm not a buddhist, but I can say with certainty that the Beats really didn't understand buddhism. Instead I view them as coming from a western tradition of capitalizing on oriental concepts by introducing them to an ignorant western audience. I doubt they did this intentionally, and it's not like I hold some kind of grudge against Kerouac for getting so much wrong. And in a way, good on them for introducing so many westerners to buddhism.
If you are interested in Buddhism and your interest came from reading Beat literature, I highly suggest you seek out a teacher that does not draw their teaching from Beat sources, or anything that can be traced back to Alan Watts. Look for institutions that have been around for a while and that try to demystify complex concepts.
Good points. As usual, the insightful posts asking the reader to think on HN get downvoted.
> Stylistically, On the Road is far superior.
Possibly true, but Dharma Bums is perhaps funnier. Whch is the better hand?
> Zen flesh but no Zen bones
Better flesh than nothing. Or perhaps not.
Possibly true, but Dharma Bums is perhaps funnier. Whch is the better hand?
> Zen flesh but no Zen bones
Better flesh than nothing. Or perhaps not.
Kind of ironic.
Kerouac lived in the town I live in. He used to drink at Gunther's, in Northport Village.
That place is not zen ...
Kerouac lived in the town I live in. He used to drink at Gunther's, in Northport Village.
That place is not zen ...
I got into Buddhism through books on my dad's bookshelf. My dad became curious about Buddhism and Taoism through the writings of Alan Watts, Gary Snyder, and other people in that crowd, and he became fascinated with those people through the novels of Jack Kerouac. I always knew about this causal chain, but I never knew that Jack Kerouac himself wanted to be a popularizer of Buddhism! In my admittedly skewed perception, the glimpse he gave America into the Beat Generation was far more influential in promoting Buddhism indirectly than his own embrace of it.
It dismays me how many idolize Kerouac. I've read him, the literary critiques, and the entire body of beatnik literature. How anyone can read the work and walk away idolizing the womanizing, self deception filled world of Kerouac is beyond me. Are you reading or are you idolizing because you've been told to idolize? If you idolize Jack Kerouac go back and re-read with modern empathy and you'll be ashamed.
> Both depict a way of living free from 20-year mortgages, nine-to-five jobs, conventional relationships, and family responsibilities
Now it's a 30 year mortgage for a nine-to-six job, if you're lucky. Where's the new beat generation?
Now it's a 30 year mortgage for a nine-to-six job, if you're lucky. Where's the new beat generation?
he died of vomiting blood from alcoholism, just like alan watts
Both Watts and Kerouac were outsiders looking in. Watts was also a very scholarly book-learned about Zen Buddhism, but he never claimed he did the thing or meditated much, he just wrote beautifully and inspired others to try meditating.
When I started meditating, I asked about Watts or Kerouac from long-term practitioners and Zen teachers. Pretty much everyone says that they wrote lots of "beautiful zen nonsense", but it's not bad because they have inspired thousands of people to try.
From a daily practice perspective, zen feels more mundane. It's like going to the gym or brushing your teeth. More people like the idea of doing zen than actually doing it. Stopping and sitting with your daily shit every day does not feel cool. When the exotic, aesthetic and philosophical aspect wears out, most people quit.
When I started meditating, I asked about Watts or Kerouac from long-term practitioners and Zen teachers. Pretty much everyone says that they wrote lots of "beautiful zen nonsense", but it's not bad because they have inspired thousands of people to try.
From a daily practice perspective, zen feels more mundane. It's like going to the gym or brushing your teeth. More people like the idea of doing zen than actually doing it. Stopping and sitting with your daily shit every day does not feel cool. When the exotic, aesthetic and philosophical aspect wears out, most people quit.
Zen Buddhism by itself does not cure alcoholism, although it can be helpful in recovery to prevent relapse.
Reading, studying, writing and thinking about Zen Buddhism like these guys did certainly does not cure anything.
It can help with craving.
It seems these 2 examples don't contribute to that idea.
So?
One might say it means they had issues keeping the Fifth Precept (abstaining from alcohol, or sometimes interpreted to mean all intoxicants), which some Buddhist laypersons adhere to. But no one ever (or did they?) claimed these men were enlightened beings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_precepts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_precepts
Pretty sure Watts never claimed to be a Buddhist. He styled himself as more of an entertainer who’s subject was religion.
How people actually lived seems relevant as long as they're giving us advice about how to live.
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.
Source: https://quotepark.com/quotes/1935679-alan-watts-i-want-to-ma...
Source: https://quotepark.com/quotes/1935679-alan-watts-i-want-to-ma...
Did Kerouac ever told you not to die an alcoholic?
If anything, he advised travelling, drinking, experiencing stuff, and burning life like a candle from both ends...
If anything, he advised travelling, drinking, experiencing stuff, and burning life like a candle from both ends...
So probably neither one of them had achieved much in the way of liberation from attachment to sensory pleasure (and the other four hindrances: hate, dullness, anxiety, and doubt) or the resulting cessation of suffering, which is the point of Buddhism.
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.
That might be okay if you read Kerouac and then go find guidance on the path from someone who really is liberated, assuming that's possible, but how do you as a novice layperson tell the difference between a liberated Zen master and a charlatan? If US seekers were good at it, Kerouac's and Watts's books wouldn't be the bestsellers in the category, they'd be eclipsed by somebody whose practice of Buddhism in their own life was actually successful and who had trustworthy, well-grounded insights to share. So you're likely to replicate the errors that led you to Kerouac in the first place by choosing someone like Richard Baker as your teacher. Then, instead of getting liberated from suffering, you just get sexually exploited.
In particular, Kerouac kind of glorifies living heedlessly, and it was precisely that heedlessness that caused his death. Also, it was Richard Baker's heedlessness that caused so much suffering to his students, leaving scars in the community around the San Francisco Zen Center that continue to cause suffering, almost 30 years after his departure. If you're looking for someone to give you permission to live heedlessly, to tell you that living heedlessly is the path to liberation from suffering, you are going to assiduously avoid anything resembling orthodox Buddhism, which says that heedlessness causes suffering.
It's kind of the opposite extreme, really: orthodox Buddhist doctrine is that you should do everything extremely carefully. And you can see this in Zen rock gardens, in the Japanese tea ceremony, in Thich Nhat Hanh's practice of singing a little verse to himself about washing his hands every time he washed his hands, in the absolute prohibition on drinking alcohol, and so on. As far as I can tell it's uniform across every branch of Buddhism.
I'm no expert, of course—obviously I'm no enlightened being or I wouldn't be posting in this cesspit of ill-will and ego. So my understanding of Buddhism should also be suspect. But there is at least somewhat less evidence that I have Buddhism entirely backwards than there is for Watts and Kerouac. Not only have I not died vomiting blood due to alcoholism, the only drug I'm addicted to is caffeine.
It's the same kind of problem we have with programming books, where incompetent fools like Herbert Schildt https://www.seebs.net/c/c_tcn4e.html outsell Kernighan & Ritchie in the "learning C" category, and where the whole methodology and architecture category is full of snake-oil salesmen who have never successfully written a large program.
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.
That might be okay if you read Kerouac and then go find guidance on the path from someone who really is liberated, assuming that's possible, but how do you as a novice layperson tell the difference between a liberated Zen master and a charlatan? If US seekers were good at it, Kerouac's and Watts's books wouldn't be the bestsellers in the category, they'd be eclipsed by somebody whose practice of Buddhism in their own life was actually successful and who had trustworthy, well-grounded insights to share. So you're likely to replicate the errors that led you to Kerouac in the first place by choosing someone like Richard Baker as your teacher. Then, instead of getting liberated from suffering, you just get sexually exploited.
In particular, Kerouac kind of glorifies living heedlessly, and it was precisely that heedlessness that caused his death. Also, it was Richard Baker's heedlessness that caused so much suffering to his students, leaving scars in the community around the San Francisco Zen Center that continue to cause suffering, almost 30 years after his departure. If you're looking for someone to give you permission to live heedlessly, to tell you that living heedlessly is the path to liberation from suffering, you are going to assiduously avoid anything resembling orthodox Buddhism, which says that heedlessness causes suffering.
It's kind of the opposite extreme, really: orthodox Buddhist doctrine is that you should do everything extremely carefully. And you can see this in Zen rock gardens, in the Japanese tea ceremony, in Thich Nhat Hanh's practice of singing a little verse to himself about washing his hands every time he washed his hands, in the absolute prohibition on drinking alcohol, and so on. As far as I can tell it's uniform across every branch of Buddhism.
I'm no expert, of course—obviously I'm no enlightened being or I wouldn't be posting in this cesspit of ill-will and ego. So my understanding of Buddhism should also be suspect. But there is at least somewhat less evidence that I have Buddhism entirely backwards than there is for Watts and Kerouac. Not only have I not died vomiting blood due to alcoholism, the only drug I'm addicted to is caffeine.
It's the same kind of problem we have with programming books, where incompetent fools like Herbert Schildt https://www.seebs.net/c/c_tcn4e.html outsell Kernighan & Ritchie in the "learning C" category, and where the whole methodology and architecture category is full of snake-oil salesmen who have never successfully written a large program.
Just because seekers lose their sight doesn't mean there's no value in their seeking, or what they learned along the way. The reality for many, including myself, is that religion, including Buddhism, is a (sometimes desperate) attempt to make sense of this confusing reality we all collectively woke up in the same way.
To be dismissive of what these folks went through, and what they taught, would be a shameful discounting of real human experience. Watts was genius, but as you note, he struggled. So, obviously, did Kerouac. No human who has found (really found) religion has avoided that same struggle. Some handle it better than others, but then again, some have life circumstances which make that more possible to digest.
To be dismissive of what these folks went through, and what they taught, would be a shameful discounting of real human experience. Watts was genius, but as you note, he struggled. So, obviously, did Kerouac. No human who has found (really found) religion has avoided that same struggle. Some handle it better than others, but then again, some have life circumstances which make that more possible to digest.
We shouldn't be dismissive but Kerouac's alcoholism is not unrelated to his writing. There's a price to prizing experience so highly.
I think the problem is distinguishing which experiences cost what ahead of living them, and finding alternatives (which, among other things, religion is or poses as). For example, mundane day-to-day hopelessness is very costly as well, which often leads people to equally costly alcoholism…
I’m intrigued. I think I understand what you’re saying but I’ve never seen it framed like this.
> there is a price for prizing experience so highly
Is there somewhere I can read more about this?
> there is a price for prizing experience so highly
Is there somewhere I can read more about this?
These men (they're usually men) are romantic heroes. Kerouac, Watts, Jim Morrison, Dylan Thomas, etc. I admire them and what they created but they usually die young, often of alcohol or drugs and they tend to leave a fair amount of destruction in their wake. Kerouac was self-conscious about what he was doing:
> I shambled after as usual as I've been doing all my life after people who interest me, because the only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars and in the middle you see the blue centerlight pop and everybody goes "Awww!"
Not the kind of man you can imagine growing old with a dog at his feet.
> I shambled after as usual as I've been doing all my life after people who interest me, because the only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars and in the middle you see the blue centerlight pop and everybody goes "Awww!"
Not the kind of man you can imagine growing old with a dog at his feet.
There's a great book about it called On The Road.
I can also recommend Ginsberg's Howl, which Kerouac gave its title: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-P2fILsLH8
> I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness
> Starving hysterical naked
I can also recommend Ginsberg's Howl, which Kerouac gave its title: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-P2fILsLH8
> I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness
> Starving hysterical naked
Yeah, Watts and Kerouac were both genius writers, and they did a wonderful job of portraying the human condition, in different ways. And I don't think their seeking was valueless—they both likely ended up much better off because of it, even if they were still miserable on an absolute scale.
I don't understand Buddhism as an attempt to make sense of reality. There's lots of stuff in the Tipitaka about attempting to make sense of reality—mostly elaborate, poetic warnings not to waste time attempting to make sense of reality. I think Buddhism is better understood as a set of practices for putting an end to suffering.
Consider, for example, https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/DN/DN02.html:
> Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in faith, remain addicted to talking about lowly topics such as these—talking about kings, robbers, … tales of the dead; tales of diversity [philosophical discussions of the past and future], the creation of the world and of the sea, and talk of whether things exist or not—he abstains from talking about lowly topics such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue.
> Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in faith, remain addicted to debates such as these—‘You understand this doctrine and discipline? I’m the one who understands this doctrine and discipline. How could you understand this doctrine and discipline? You’re practicing wrongly. I’m practicing rightly. I’m being consistent. You’re not. What should be said first you said last. What should be said last you said first. What you took so long to think out has been refuted. Your doctrine has been overthrown. You’re defeated. Go and try to salvage your doctrine; extricate yourself if you can!’—he abstains from debates such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue. …
> Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such “animal” arts as (forecasting):
> there will be a lunar eclipse;
> there will be a solar eclipse; …
> he abstains from wrong livelihood, from “animal” arts such as these.
Or consider https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN63.html:
> “Māluṅkyaputta, did I ever say to you, ‘Come, Māluṅkyaputta, live the holy life under me, and I will disclose to you that ‘The cosmos is eternal,’ or ‘The cosmos is not eternal,’ or ‘The cosmos is finite,’ or ‘The cosmos is infinite,’ or ‘The soul & the body are the same,’ or ‘The soul is one thing and the body another,’ or ‘After death a Tathāgata exists,’ or ‘After death a Tathāgata does not exist,’ or ‘After death a Tathāgata both exists & does not exist,’ or ‘After death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist’?”
> “No, lord.” …
> “Then that being the case, foolish man, who are you to be claiming grievances/making demands of anyone?…
> It’s just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, ‘I won’t have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a brahman, a merchant, or a worker.’ He would say, ‘I won’t have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me… until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short… until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored… until I know his home village, town, or city… until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow… until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark… until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated… until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird… until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.’ He would say, ‘I won’t have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.’ The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him.…
> “So, Māluṅkyaputta, remember what is undisclosed by me as undisclosed, and what is disclosed by me as disclosed. And what is undisclosed by me? ‘The cosmos is eternal,’ is undisclosed by me. ‘The cosmos is not eternal,’ is undisclosed by me. ‘The cosmos is finite’ … ‘The cosmos is infinite’ … ‘The soul & the body are the same’ … ‘The soul is one thing and the body another’ … ‘After death a Tathāgata exists’ … ‘After death a Tathāgata does not exist’ … ‘After death a Tathāgata both exists & does not exist’ … ‘After death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist,’ is undisclosed by me.
> “And why are they undisclosed by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, unbinding. That’s why they are undisclosed by me.
There's literal bookshelves full of this stuff in the Tipitaka, and somewhat less in the Mahayana sutras, and as far as I can tell it's all unanimous that the point of Buddhism is that it's a set of practices designed to produce happiness, not a set of doctrines or concepts designed to produce conceptual understanding. There are a bunch of doctrines and concepts, it's true, but their purpose is to guide your practice, not to make sense of the world. In science we make sense of the world through conceptual understanding, which is an end in itself; but, as I understand it, in Buddhism we make sense of the world by focusing our attention on our phenomenological experience of it and removing the hindrances, the concepts and doctrines serve only to guide our practice in doing that, and even the sensemaking process is merely a means to the ultimate goal of extinguishing suffering.
But I'm not anybody whose opinion merits much weight on this matter. I'm just another fool.
I don't understand Buddhism as an attempt to make sense of reality. There's lots of stuff in the Tipitaka about attempting to make sense of reality—mostly elaborate, poetic warnings not to waste time attempting to make sense of reality. I think Buddhism is better understood as a set of practices for putting an end to suffering.
Consider, for example, https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/DN/DN02.html:
> Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in faith, remain addicted to talking about lowly topics such as these—talking about kings, robbers, … tales of the dead; tales of diversity [philosophical discussions of the past and future], the creation of the world and of the sea, and talk of whether things exist or not—he abstains from talking about lowly topics such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue.
> Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in faith, remain addicted to debates such as these—‘You understand this doctrine and discipline? I’m the one who understands this doctrine and discipline. How could you understand this doctrine and discipline? You’re practicing wrongly. I’m practicing rightly. I’m being consistent. You’re not. What should be said first you said last. What should be said last you said first. What you took so long to think out has been refuted. Your doctrine has been overthrown. You’re defeated. Go and try to salvage your doctrine; extricate yourself if you can!’—he abstains from debates such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue. …
> Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such “animal” arts as (forecasting):
> there will be a lunar eclipse;
> there will be a solar eclipse; …
> he abstains from wrong livelihood, from “animal” arts such as these.
Or consider https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN63.html:
> “Māluṅkyaputta, did I ever say to you, ‘Come, Māluṅkyaputta, live the holy life under me, and I will disclose to you that ‘The cosmos is eternal,’ or ‘The cosmos is not eternal,’ or ‘The cosmos is finite,’ or ‘The cosmos is infinite,’ or ‘The soul & the body are the same,’ or ‘The soul is one thing and the body another,’ or ‘After death a Tathāgata exists,’ or ‘After death a Tathāgata does not exist,’ or ‘After death a Tathāgata both exists & does not exist,’ or ‘After death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist’?”
> “No, lord.” …
> “Then that being the case, foolish man, who are you to be claiming grievances/making demands of anyone?…
> It’s just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, ‘I won’t have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a brahman, a merchant, or a worker.’ He would say, ‘I won’t have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me… until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short… until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored… until I know his home village, town, or city… until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow… until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark… until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated… until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird… until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.’ He would say, ‘I won’t have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.’ The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him.…
> “So, Māluṅkyaputta, remember what is undisclosed by me as undisclosed, and what is disclosed by me as disclosed. And what is undisclosed by me? ‘The cosmos is eternal,’ is undisclosed by me. ‘The cosmos is not eternal,’ is undisclosed by me. ‘The cosmos is finite’ … ‘The cosmos is infinite’ … ‘The soul & the body are the same’ … ‘The soul is one thing and the body another’ … ‘After death a Tathāgata exists’ … ‘After death a Tathāgata does not exist’ … ‘After death a Tathāgata both exists & does not exist’ … ‘After death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist,’ is undisclosed by me.
> “And why are they undisclosed by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, unbinding. That’s why they are undisclosed by me.
There's literal bookshelves full of this stuff in the Tipitaka, and somewhat less in the Mahayana sutras, and as far as I can tell it's all unanimous that the point of Buddhism is that it's a set of practices designed to produce happiness, not a set of doctrines or concepts designed to produce conceptual understanding. There are a bunch of doctrines and concepts, it's true, but their purpose is to guide your practice, not to make sense of the world. In science we make sense of the world through conceptual understanding, which is an end in itself; but, as I understand it, in Buddhism we make sense of the world by focusing our attention on our phenomenological experience of it and removing the hindrances, the concepts and doctrines serve only to guide our practice in doing that, and even the sensemaking process is merely a means to the ultimate goal of extinguishing suffering.
But I'm not anybody whose opinion merits much weight on this matter. I'm just another fool.
Hello fellow fool ;-) Every time I start to write a response, I refresh the page and see you've added more. Suffice it to say I'm no expert...just someone who started reading about Buddhism a few years ago and have found value is some of its teaching. However, I'm not willing (or able) to get into quoting passages to prove my point. I've found certain things that sit well with me in Buddhism, but I've very much only scratched the surface. I'm aware of the fact that the surface of Buddhism and the beliefs contained within is as vast as the surface of Christianity, and that there are extreme or controversial beliefs in both. I personally have found much to agree with and disagree with in both...but that doesn't stop me from trying to understand further. I wish you the best.
I think I might disagree on principal that ending suffering (mine or others) is a worthy goal in and of itself. Does that mean I shouldn't investigate it?
I don't know. I think you should do what you think is best.
Inspiring someone to seek out a certain path is different from being unflawed yourself. If you bash an idea or philosophy because the person who holds it is weak and susceptible to morale or spiritual failures, then you need to bash all ideas and philosophies because that's the human condition.
When I was a dedicated yogi, I inspired several people to practice yoga, some of whom went to become teachers. I myself have fallen off the wagon and haven't had a regular practice in over two years. So it goes.
When I was a dedicated yogi, I inspired several people to practice yoga, some of whom went to become teachers. I myself have fallen off the wagon and haven't had a regular practice in over two years. So it goes.
Yes, I agree.
My intention wasn't to bash Buddhism, more to say that Kerouac and Watts shouldn't be considered experts on it, any more than James Burke should be considered an expert on physics; and to point out the difficult problem of bootstrapping your knowledge of a skill one doesn't have.
If you want to build houses, you're usually better off following the advice of someone who has successfully built houses than someone who has read about building houses, watched builders, or written eloquently about building. That is, there may be some value in the advice of the last three people, but there is usually more value in the advice of the first.
If you want to machine pistons, you're usually better off following the advice of someone who has successfully machined pistons than someone who has read about machining pistons, watched machinists, or written eloquently about machining.
If you want to paint beautiful paintings, you're usually better off following the advice of someone who has successfully painted beautiful paintings than someone who has read about painting, watched painters, or written eloquently about painting.
In the same way, I think that if you want to reduce the suffering in your life, you'll probably be better off following the advice of someone who has successfully reduced the suffering in their life than someone who has read about reducing suffering, watched others reduce their suffering, or written eloquently about reducing suffering.
But what do you do if you cannot tell if a house has fallen down, a piston leaks, a painting is ugly, or a guru is dwelling in their own private self-created hell?
My intention wasn't to bash Buddhism, more to say that Kerouac and Watts shouldn't be considered experts on it, any more than James Burke should be considered an expert on physics; and to point out the difficult problem of bootstrapping your knowledge of a skill one doesn't have.
If you want to build houses, you're usually better off following the advice of someone who has successfully built houses than someone who has read about building houses, watched builders, or written eloquently about building. That is, there may be some value in the advice of the last three people, but there is usually more value in the advice of the first.
If you want to machine pistons, you're usually better off following the advice of someone who has successfully machined pistons than someone who has read about machining pistons, watched machinists, or written eloquently about machining.
If you want to paint beautiful paintings, you're usually better off following the advice of someone who has successfully painted beautiful paintings than someone who has read about painting, watched painters, or written eloquently about painting.
In the same way, I think that if you want to reduce the suffering in your life, you'll probably be better off following the advice of someone who has successfully reduced the suffering in their life than someone who has read about reducing suffering, watched others reduce their suffering, or written eloquently about reducing suffering.
But what do you do if you cannot tell if a house has fallen down, a piston leaks, a painting is ugly, or a guru is dwelling in their own private self-created hell?
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
Who would you consider to be "liberated"? I can't recall even some of the well-regarded teachers of recent times (Thich Nhat Hanh, Ajahn Chah, and others) making that claim about themselves, though others certainly made the claim for them.
Fuck, I don't know! Ask someone liberated, not me.
A truly liberated person would hardly scream out "I am liberated, come to my Ted Talk!"
If we believe the Tipitaka, Shakyamuni talked about how liberated he was, what it was like to be liberated, and how to get liberated like him, pretty much nonstop, for decades. If enlightenment makes you humble then the Buddha was a charlatan and Buddhism is bosh. (This generalizes to most religions!)
Contrapositively, if Buddhism is even moderately well-founded, then at least some truly liberated people would totally scream that out, at least under some circumstances.
Contrapositively, if Buddhism is even moderately well-founded, then at least some truly liberated people would totally scream that out, at least under some circumstances.
I feel a need to clarify.
I'm Eastern Orthodox Christian, so I do find some sort of speaking out to be productive. The apostles did evangelize, they worked miracles and focused on others above themselves according to the Book of Acts and epistles. But even St. Paul, in his epistles, speaks openly and humbly of his own struggles with the flesh. While he's given strength for that battle, he is meaningfully but still not completely liberated from dealing with the problems sin/temptation present. I understand that everyone who calls for me to listen to a talk could only be liberated to a partial extent. I think once a mortal is fully liberated, they will no longer need to evangelize. Kind of like how we only have sex in this world, it's something for the interim. Until the Resurrection, most if not all of our lives are a work in progress.
I also pay attention to the examples of the desert fathers, many of whom held exceptional wisdom which caused them to deliberately eschew all company, out of fear of becoming prideful by asserting spiritual/intellectual superiority and taking control of the lives of the people in the cities from which they fled.
Where you said "Fuck, I don't know! Ask someone liberated, not me.", I might say "Fiddlesticks, I don't know! Ask someone further along the path with a teaching mission, not me."
By the way I don't if you were aware or not, but this man, Father Seraphim Rose was actually a former student of Alan Watts. I find his writing helpful, personally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seraphim_Rose
I'm Eastern Orthodox Christian, so I do find some sort of speaking out to be productive. The apostles did evangelize, they worked miracles and focused on others above themselves according to the Book of Acts and epistles. But even St. Paul, in his epistles, speaks openly and humbly of his own struggles with the flesh. While he's given strength for that battle, he is meaningfully but still not completely liberated from dealing with the problems sin/temptation present. I understand that everyone who calls for me to listen to a talk could only be liberated to a partial extent. I think once a mortal is fully liberated, they will no longer need to evangelize. Kind of like how we only have sex in this world, it's something for the interim. Until the Resurrection, most if not all of our lives are a work in progress.
I also pay attention to the examples of the desert fathers, many of whom held exceptional wisdom which caused them to deliberately eschew all company, out of fear of becoming prideful by asserting spiritual/intellectual superiority and taking control of the lives of the people in the cities from which they fled.
Where you said "Fuck, I don't know! Ask someone liberated, not me.", I might say "Fiddlesticks, I don't know! Ask someone further along the path with a teaching mission, not me."
By the way I don't if you were aware or not, but this man, Father Seraphim Rose was actually a former student of Alan Watts. I find his writing helpful, personally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seraphim_Rose
Paul was humble, but Jesus wasn't.
I can understand how you might think that if you don't believe Jesus was the Son of God. Believing in the Miracle of Kenosis, I find that demonstrates humility beyond any words I could ever hope to type.
Well, I mean, he went around saying he was the Son of God, asking people to wash his feet, kicking moneychangers out of the temple, telling people nobody would reach the Father except through him, and so on, or so it is said. Same sort of thing as Shakyamuni saying he was enlightened, had seen the beginnings and endings of countless universes that other people (and even devas and Brahman) had misunderstood, knew the path to enlightenment and the end of suffering that others should follow, urging his followers to call him by honorifics, and so on, or so it is said. Neither one of them behaved like Paul or the desert fathers.
Except that probably most Christians think Shakyamuni was, at best, mistaken about all that stuff, and Jesus wasn't.
Except that probably most Christians think Shakyamuni was, at best, mistaken about all that stuff, and Jesus wasn't.
>If US seekers were good at it, Kerouac's and Watts's books wouldn't be the bestsellers in the category
That presumes that people who learned about Buddhism from Jack Kerouac read his books because they were already interested in Buddhism, when what really happened was that Kerouac and Watts chose to emphasize those parts of Buddhism that they knew people would like to hear about (not being attached to social status) and not emphasize those parts that people wouldn't (not listening to music and sleeping on the floor). You won't attract entertainment-seeking consumers by telling them upfront how difficult "without attachments" really is.
That presumes that people who learned about Buddhism from Jack Kerouac read his books because they were already interested in Buddhism, when what really happened was that Kerouac and Watts chose to emphasize those parts of Buddhism that they knew people would like to hear about (not being attached to social status) and not emphasize those parts that people wouldn't (not listening to music and sleeping on the floor). You won't attract entertainment-seeking consumers by telling them upfront how difficult "without attachments" really is.
>So probably neither one of them had achieved much in the way of liberation from attachment to sensory pleasure
Them and millions of others practicing. Who said it was easy?
Think of it like getting off drugs. Millions relapse all the time. Doesn't mean it's not a good thing to do (to get off drugs).
Them and millions of others practicing. Who said it was easy?
Think of it like getting off drugs. Millions relapse all the time. Doesn't mean it's not a good thing to do (to get off drugs).
True.
So the world's best football coach isn't very good, because he's fat and slow?
If his last team lost all their games, he probably isn't very good.
[deleted]
Not a bad way to go
> … Sean Monahan, later said that though Kerouac’s “intuitions were right,” he “made up his Buddhism” and “didn’t know a lot about it, didn’t have a lot of training in it.” Watts himself said Kerouac had “Zen flesh but no Zen bones,” and poet and essayist Kenneth Rexroth wrote, “Kerouac’s Buddha is a dime-store incense burner.”
The moss in this, is that Buddhism itself is purely a product of thought. Siddhartha himself did nothing other than thinking and writing (unsure on the writing vs. transcription).
Everything else is lichen grafted on over the years as dogma creeps in.
The moss in this, is that Buddhism itself is purely a product of thought. Siddhartha himself did nothing other than thinking and writing (unsure on the writing vs. transcription).
Everything else is lichen grafted on over the years as dogma creeps in.
Seems strange a scan mainly about rejection of his book. Given he is totally into one kind of freedom to have drug, sex and his own idea of Buddhism (given he did not expose much to Indian, Tibetan, Hans and Japanese version … ) may be he is the Buddha otherwise you need to learn. And whilst seem really learning his Buddhism sorry I give it a pass.
Buddhism is about freedom from something, depends upon the sect. But drug and sex (and girl friend fxxx sorry) is a strange bed fellow. And he is not one may I say. But what I know.
Buddhism is about freedom from something, depends upon the sect. But drug and sex (and girl friend fxxx sorry) is a strange bed fellow. And he is not one may I say. But what I know.
This is a full album from Kerouac featuring poetry readings from him, being able to hear the voice behind the writing adds a distinct dimension to the experience of appreciating the art.
I really hope anyone who comes into this thread takes the time to check it out. It’s pure distilled cool.