"Howl" provides plenty of instances of this. See also, for instance, the line "who cooked rotten animals lung heart feet tail borsht & tortillas dreaming of the pure vegetable kingdom" (52), with a reference to Hinduism (in vegetarianism) which clearly connects to spiritual aspirations.

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/49303/howl.

This is a central point. Criminality and madness are means to get to a consciousness which is spiritual in nature.

I would say that this is particularly central to the Beat movement, and can be seen not only in the authors' literary outputs but in their lives and lifestyles as well. In fact, the Beats were often very closely associated to marginal figures and criminals, for instance to Herbert Huncke (who is believed to have first put forth the term Beat) and Neal Cassady, and some, like Burroughs, directly adopted a rather criminal lifestyle, or one which included social exclusion and marginality.

I would add that the Beats were fascinated by criminals (a category which includes drug users and prostitutes) as much as they were by people afflicted with mental health problems or considered "insane" by society. These are two types of the people marginalized by society with whom they associated and who they praised.

Distinction into different phases of writing is suggested here too. It is the same distinction I suggested with an added timeline.

This is a good quote and raises two ideas:

• Gary Snyder is a very interesting member of the Beat Generation when considering Beat Spirituality because in his explicit involvement in Buddhist practice. His depiction in Kerouac's The Dharma Bums is also revealing of his character and significance in the movement.
• Buddhism mixes, in the Beat Generation, with ideas of freedom (one of the all-times American values). As I want to consider how the Beats reacted to the American values of mid-century society, it is interesting to consider how they personally understood the ideal of freedom. Buddhism is one of the ways in which they re-invented it and connects to freedom from the ego, or the self. Other writers, for instance William Burroughs, considered freedom in more institutional/political ways (see his book Naked Lunch).

Why, though? Kerouac was a lifelong scholar of Buddhism, and so were other Beats like Ginsberg and Snyder. Indeed, Gary Snyder officially became a Buddhist and a disciple of Miura, and Ginsberg had a student-teacher relationship (together with a friendship) with the known Buddhist master Trungpa Rinpoche. This should be enough to consider them, at least at some points in their life, as Buddhists.

A clear division into different categories seems to be central to the argument of why Beat spirituality has not been taken seriously. Not only eclectic/synchretic faiths range across different "categories" of religion (e.g. monotheistic and politheistic, perhaps), but their beliefs probably did not conform to the rules which define different categories.

Should this be considered to be true? What would support this? I think that modern anthropology of religion would not be so influenced by Christian notions of religion. Certainly, I should do more research about this.

Good point: the idea which some scholars had about Beat spirituality is influenced by Western notions of religion. However, this concept could be further elaborated on.

This connects to the idea of syncretic faiths.

Again, some theoretical/anthropological background considering distinctions between spirituality and religion would be useful, although it would admittedly take much space.

This seems to be a good source as concerns Buddhism and its evasion, in its doctrine itself, of more "Western" notions of religion.

Central point about Buddhism which strictly relates to Beat spirituality.

As previously annotated, a useful distinction could be made between different phases of Beat writing (which would, however, vary for every author). In Keroac's and Ginsberg's cases, however, one could roughly say that in a first phase the two were more concerned with the discovery of and focus on the self, and in a successive phase with a more spiritual approach to the self which included questions of its dissolution.

This applies to Kerouac. It would be interesting to consider more in detail how Kerouac scholarship considers the writer in this regard.

That the Beats were a controversial group (in cultural and also literary temrs) is a significant point.

This is also an interesting point, and shows to what extent the idea of "religion" mixes with practices associated to culture.

This is an interesting point. Perhaps, Beat spirituality has been somehow associated to ideas of New Age "new religions", as the author suggested in the introduction.

Taxon: taxonomic category.

What would be the sources for this? Where does this implication come from, exactly? It seems to be intuitively valid, but would be more so with some support.

Again, this would be interesting to include when considering more anthropological notions. The writer here seems to be Jonathan Z. Smith, an American historian of religion (contemporary: he died las year). This could be an interesting essay by him on the topic of religions (quote comes from here): http://www.iupui.edu/~womrel/Rel433%20Readings/SearchableTextFiles/Smith_ReligionReligionsReligious.pdf.

This would support my view of religion as applied to the Beats.

On-point and funny example about the perceived difference between "pilgrimages" and "existential tourism". Distrust spirituality which goes "counter-culture"; in opposition to mainstream culture.

This could be very interesting and useful to my argument. In fact, if I want to make a point about Beat "embodiment" of their philosophy and literature, I might consider some anthropological notions which go back to performance and embodiment of abstract things by figures such as the shaman or the fool. Including anthropology (in this case anthropologist Durkheim) in ways which would oppose my thesis could be interesting as well, especially if I illustrate how this has been done by other scholars.

Important argument, which also exposes common misconceptions about the Beats (see Podhoretz too).

This seems to be another interesting explanation of why the Beats would not be taken seriously as concerns religion: the attack of "many values of the Christian establishment". Specifically, though, which ones? Some ideas:

• Devotion to God alone (as opposed to devotion to other faiths and other Gods as well).
• Could the notions of suffering and that of sacrifice (often associated to Christianity) contrast with the approach of many of the Beats (especially because of the influence of Buddhism)?

Haphazard: defined by chance; casual.

From "Howl": "who studied Plotinus Poe St. John of the Cross telepathy and bop kabbalah because the cosmos instinctively vibrated at their feet in Kansas" (first section). https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/49303/howl.

The book I am reading (Naked Angels, by John Tytell) points out that the association of "beatific" to "Beat" came after the "beaten down" one. This, Tytell argues, is representative of a movement of interest of the Beats from themselves (as in their self) to spirituality (and the subsequent interest in the loss of self which Buddhism proposes).

I believe this comes from the essay "The Know-Nothing Bohemians" (Podhoretz). This is the link to the full text to go back to how they are considered "antireligious" and, implicitely, hostile to religious commitment because lacking emotional and intellectual depth. http://sitesarchive.unc.edu/tech/webdesignws/basic/graphics/Readings/knownothing.pdf.

See the second annotation and ideas as to how their spirituality was not taken seriously. It could be well considered to be because of their reputation (this would make sense, especially because people associated to the group, e.g. Neil Cassady, were often arrested for possession of drugs or theft).

The book is called "Big Sky Mind: Buddhism and the Beat Generation" (Carole Tonkinson). Consider finding or getting: https://www.amazon.com/Big-Sky-Mind-Buddhism-Generation/dp/1573225010. It contains essays, poems, photographs, and letters between different authors: seems very interesting and useful!

How does this relate to my thesis? Spirituality would need to be an essential part of my thesis, since I wish to consider how the lifestyle of authors of the Beat Generation blurs the defines between what is usually considered "life" and what is usually considered "literature". If I aim to show that they were "practical artists", or "performative artists" in some way (need theoretical background here), their spirituality would be an essential part of this definition, as it was an essential part of their life.

See how in the essay "Prose Contribution to the Cuban Revolution" he says "That's the karma I wanted, to be a saint" (The Essential Ginsberg). Being a saint comes before being a writer.

Why have they not been taken seriously? This could be an interesting question to ask. Some ideas could be:

• Beat religiosity has not been taken seriously because it did not usually focus on one religion only, but moved across different faiths (in Kerouac's case, mainly Buddhism and Christianity, and in Ginsberg's Hinduism was an influence as well as Buddhism, if I remember correctly).
• It has not been taken seriously because of the lifestyle which the Beats were known for, which was somehow often lascivious.

It is then interesting to include these aspects in an evaluation of Beat spirituality and then prove that it was nonetheless taken seriously by the authors.

Religious eclecticism: multiple faiths. This is from the collection of poems Mexico City Blues. In an interview, when asked to whom he prayed, Kerouac replied: "I pray to my little brother, who died, and to my father, and to Buddha, and to Jesus Christ, and to the Virgin Mary" (Carlisle 205). This is the link to the book: https://books.google.ie/books/about/Moral_Powers_Fragile_Beliefs.html?id=C6j45qICcO4C&redir_esc=y.

Famously, Kerouac remained, throughout his life, a Christian, and always considered himself one. It would be interesting to look into the contrast between Christianity and Buddhism as concerns suffering (one elevates it, while the other aims at its annihilation) and how Kerouac approached it too. I remember one article which talked about Kerouac as mainly "a sufferer", possibly from The Times: find it again.

This seems to be a very useful article and is quoted multiple times in this one. This is the link to it: https://www-jstor-org.ucc.idm.oclc.org/stable/pdf/1509800.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Ab4280ef4f624b5827b9fdccfaf27c31b.