Watts and Osho were on the same wavelength when it comes to imparting their own definition of religion and philosophy. Both had their human flaws and didn't care. Their message was and is still sound (no wonder they are popular on YouTube).
Why is it still sound if they themselves could not live and follow their own philosophy? I am wary of anyone who professes something that sounds technically sound, but which they themselves cannot live up to.
That's an extremely common theme in the world. Teachers, therapists, doctors, etc. Often the instructor is completely fucked up, and is trying to cope with that by teaching/helping others. But they still have insightful and good advice, even if they don't follow it themselves. Don't focus on the instructor as some kind of idol that, if their perfection wanes, so does your attention to their teaching. Instead focus on the message and whether it will work for you. Many people find that it does, and it's that direct result that matters.
Well to bring in a Christian notion here that is useful: We’re all sinners and therefore destined to fall short, but that isn’t an excuse to not try, and to keep trying.
Or to put it another way: Hypocrites aren’t wrong. They’re just hypocrites.
medion|3 years ago
0xbadcafebee|3 years ago
naasking|3 years ago
No one would or even could live up to such a purity test.
user8501|3 years ago
Can you explain which part of his philosophy sounds “technically sound” but he clearly isn’t living up to?
And also what does it mean to live up to a philosophy? Do you “live up” to the idea that the universe is a so and so (fill your own beliefs in here)?
If you started drinking more than your friends would like, would that invalidate your opinion about the universe in some way?
bananamerica|3 years ago
jonathankoren|3 years ago
Or to put it another way: Hypocrites aren’t wrong. They’re just hypocrites.
EricDeb|3 years ago