Alan Watts told *The Story of the Chinese Farmer *, which is also sometimes found under the title *Maybe*. It appears that he told this story sometime between 1960-1969, since it was published in Watts, A. (2011). *Eastern wisdom, modern life: Collected talks: 1960-1969*. New World Library. **Is there any history of this story before Watts?** Is there a similar story that it might have been based upon? On the other hand, has some scholar researched this question and concluded that Watts wrote it himself?

Last year, I applied for the Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent) Tech Visa in the UK. From the two criteria: "prove at least 2 innovations in tech" and "demonstrate how your engagement with the community helped advanced the sector", I picked the first one, because I don't spend much time socialising online, just doing my programming work. I did give link to my GitHub profile and showed my programming work. Still, the response that I got was negative and stated that "the applicant is expected to have the profile in the community" which I know is false, because it's not my criterion. This all happened because initially there were errors made by experts in their decision, and when I complained and applied for the review, the manager of the organisation that is supposed to provide fair reviews, hated me and wrote the review herself which is not based on any true facts. If you're interested, you can read the review yourself, but after each sentence please ask "why should I believe this, what are the objective facts that support statements". I'm a Senior Software Engineer, and I know that I didn't use frameworks in my work, instead I made dem frameworks myself. The manager just lied about me to the government because they're mental and there's no-one regulating this enterprise that issues reviews. In any way, I will sue the company for breaking the GPDR since my choice of criteria is my personal data and it was not processed according to my consent and that's settled. However, I also want to prove that telling me that > "Although early in his career, an applicant who wants to be considered as Exceptional Promise is expected to have a profile outside of his immediate employer. This is feasible even with limited experience." is limiting my opportunities on the religious grounds, such as that I'm a buddhist. This is in addition to the fact there was a clear choice between the two criteria, I picked the innovations, and was judged for the community profile because the manager without Computer Science education is not even in the position to evaluate my work (that's why there's no technical details in the review and the lies of my work not being innovative everywhere without any proof of that). Sorry for the long preamble, I just want you to understand the background to my frustration when I'm a professional developer, spend 10+ hours a day coding my software, and at the moment not really keen on engaging with the community because I want to finish my software to the extend that I'm happy with it to be presented to the world and because I'm naturally OK by myself and also don't really like the state of what the "community" is doing, with anyone calling themselves developers after taking an online course, whereas I'm a Software Engineer with a master's degree. I'm not a stuck up person it's just annoying how I showed a distinction in masters, a senior software engineering position by 25 yo, and none of these things even matter for the visa? For non-tech sections, people have to have at least a PhD to apply for the same visa, but apparently for the tech one, you can get it just with the community profile "feasible even with limited experience"! The tech bubble is pretty annoying, you can read more . The best way to express my attitude is with a quote > But recall that Nietzsche is not attempting to defend values for everybody to adopt. He wants to free higher people from living by the standards (of equality, modesty, mediocrity) of the ‘herd’. I think that Nietzsche is aligned with buddhism, and although he did attack it, it was only the part that is related to people becoming ascetics and thus denying their nature, which is exactly what Gautama Buddha was against iirc. To tell me I have to have a profile in the community is like punishing a kid in the kindergarten for "not playing with other kids". We're adults and I'm building my business and I had shown how I contributed over 60 packages to Open Source, which were dismissed as "not track record". The woman is clearly insane and I know that because I met her and she talked to me in such patronising tone that I knew she thinks I'm upset about not getting the visa for my work not being good enough, rather than because the experts make mistakes and the organisation didn't even ensure that the recommendation they return is correct. Back to the buddhism, this is the main theme I want to use: > SRAMANA, sramana. This is closely allied to the word shaman, and a > shaman is the holy man in a culture that is still hunting, it isn’t > settled, it isn’t agrarian. There is a very strong and important > difference between a shaman and a priest. A priest receives his > ordination from his superiors. He receives something from a tradition > which is handed down. > > A shaman doesn’t. He receives his enlightenment by going off into the > forest by himself to be completely alone. In other words, a shaman is > a man who has undergone solitariness. He has gone away into the forest > to find out who he really is, because it’s very difficult to find that > out while you’re with other people, and the reason is that other > people are busy all the time telling you who you are, in many many > ways, by the laws they impose on you, by the behavior ruts they set on > you, by the things they tell you, by the fact that they always call > you by your name, and by the fact that when you live among people you > have to be in a state of ceaseless chatter. > > But if you want to find out who you are before your father and mother > conceived you, who you really are, you almost have to go off by > yourself. You go into the forest, and stop talking, and even stop > thinking words, and be absolutely alone, and listen to the great > silences. **"Thusness" by Alan Watts** In buddhist lectures, I always hear about how society brainwashes you by giving you a name, setting the rules and standards that are there to ensure its (temporal) victory over time in trying to establish itself as permanent, but buddhists know that nothing is permanent. Therefore, I'm trying to extract the essence of the idea that a man, as an individual, does not owe society, he is free to live for himself and pursue his/her own goals. This is best reflected in Ayn Rand's philosophy, > “Nothing is given to man on earth. Everything he needs has to be produced. And here man faces his basic alternative: he can survive in only one of two ways—by the independent work of his own mind or as a parasite fed by the minds of others. The creator originates. The parasite borrows. The creator faces nature alone. The parasite faces nature through an intermediary. **The Fountainhead ** *Zen is concerned with what actually is rather than what we think or feel about what is.* What things are, is that my code works, gives result and solves problems. What others think or feel about it is the community profile which I don't care about. Can you please give me all possible quotes/parts of teaching that would prove that according to buddhism I don't owe society a community profile, I can work on my own and make significant contribution to the sector with just my development work (i.e., the criterion I chose for the visa), without having to prove anything to anyone with the profile. > “A leader is best > When people barely know he exists > Of a good leader, who talks little, > When his work is done, his aim fulfilled, > They will say, “We did this ourselves.” **Lao Tzu** I tried searching for "buddhism and society" topics, but all comes up vague. What I'm really looking for is anything that resembles Alan Watts's saying that a buddha is not the one who's been conditioned by the society and "community", but on contrary, the one who leaves it to find his/her own way. I know that working on my own on independent software is the way of dealing with suffering, therefore it's irrelevant if I have the profile or not. Gramercy.

I've just answered a question referencing Alan Watts . I'm aware he isn't a straightforward figure though I've always found him provocative and interesting. At one point I though he was a Buddhist having written books such as The Way of Zen . I'm pretty sure that isn't the case now. So the question is what kind of relationship did Alan Watts have to Buddhism. Was he a practitioner at any point in his life or did he just use the ideas in a kind of heady new age type of mix that he was pushing at the time?

I was listening to a podcast featuring Alan Watts and he stated that Buddhism was Hinduism stripped for export. He also says it at more length in his book Buddhism the Religion of No Religion .... > Hinduism [..] is a religious culture. Being a Hindu really involves > living in India [...]. You cannot be a Hindu in the full sense living > in the United States or India. > > Buddhism is Hinduism stripped for export. The Buddha was a reformer in > the highest sense: someone who wants to go to the original form or > reform it. There is a sense here of Hinduism being a culturally specific religion and Buddhism being it's universal equivalent. Is there any sense in which that is true or is 'Buddhism is just Hinduism stripped for export' just a pithy soundbite that actually doesn't mean very much?

Does Buddhism propose the possibility of any state of consciousness which feels better than neutral? Many buddhist teachings I have heard so far (mostly by Alan Watts) seem to point to an "ideal" state of consciousness which feels neutral or maybe even not at all, as there is no conscious. Does Buddhism claim to have some path to "eternal happiness" and more than "non-suffering"?