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.