[Buddha-l] Jung and Dignaga

[Dan Lusthaus]

> Fortunately, there has never been a Freudian who has ever demonized
> Jung. Thank heavens polemicization is a one-way street.

Who claimed that? Both camps have been at war for a long time. But you are
not playing the false parity card, are you?

"False parity. X is off the hook because Y also does it (even when in
reality, Y didn't do it)."

That both sides have traded accusations doesn't mean both are automatically
equally false in their accusations, or that one side isn't more dishonest in
its characterization of the points in dispute than the other. They may both
be similarly guilty of mutual disparagement -- a weighty enough anusaya -- 
but that doesn't mean that the content of what they say is equally invalid
or equally dispensed with. What is "in them, what is not in them"? Calls for
further judicious analysis, not mindless relativization.

> I think it may be worth pointing out that just as buddha-l is not a
> forum for advocating or denigrating any form of Buddhism, it is also not
> a forum for partisan advocacy or denigration of any form of depth
> psychology.

When I put up my "Freudian Analyst Here" shingle, I'll be sure to advertise
elsewhere. Until then, discussing the pros and cons of their theories as
they may relate -- directly or indirectly -- to Buddhism, and how they
themselves embodied their principles, should be fair game. Just as you are
free to constantly remind us that you think Yogacara is mumble-headed
gobbledy-gook, Dignaga and Dharmakirti were mere polemicists, and
Unitarian-Universalist-Quakers are the only sane Americans (as long as they
don't vote Republican).

Dan