Earlier quoted context omitted.
That might be true in the abstract, as a theory. But when it comes to point-of-life I think it’s better to judge a philosophy based on how a person has lived it. And it doesn’t seem like Watts lived as good of a life as he could.
While I agree that Alan hasn't really lived his life righteously, that's an ad hominem. But anyway, if you meet buddha on the road kill him, and beware people claiming they have all the answers. There isn't a single truth, as this whole discussion shows, only a variety of perspectives, and I am fond of this one, even if it is a fiction.
Philosophy is for living, not for sterililized, abstract what-ifs and hypotheticals that can only be critiqued as platonic ideals, lest you be accused of committing a “fallacy” for maintaining that a philosophy should be practiced and not just talked about.