[Buddha-l] Sabba Sutta

[Dan Lusthaus]

> On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 00:16 -0500, Dan Lusthaus wrote:
>
> > To the question of whether the alayavijnana is restricted to a single
> > individual, or whether there is a "collective unconscious" a la Jung,
the
> > Yogacara texts themselves categorically deny the latter, and insist on
the
> > former.

Richard Hayes replies

> Actually, so does Jung. He regretted using the term "collective
> unconscious," because so many people took it to mean some sort of spooky
> shared psyche of which our individual minds are a manifestation.

Well, this is Jung performing a bit of retroactive revisionism on his own
writings. It was not that people were getting him wrong, he is simply
dishonestly admitting that *he* got it wrong. If one reads his position
papers for the Nazis, he himself used his own notion of collective
unconscious as a *racial* unconscious to argue the inferiority of Jews as a
collective race, and other non-Aryans, to the sparkling blue-eyed, blond
aryans who shared a better collective unK.

And, yes, that shit is really spooky!

After the war -- like many other Germans... Heidegger comes to mind -- he
never owned up to what Daddy was doing before and during the war, and took
numerous steps to obfuscate his past (and his hidden present). This is part
of that makeover.

> The Jungian theory of archetypes (which Waldron gets right) is not so
> different from the classical Buddhist idea of anusayas---deeply latent
> tendencies of which a person tends to be unaware that keep manifesting
> as karma (deliberate action).

No need to drag Jung into this. I much prefer Padmasiri de Silva's
exposition of the anusayas, etc., in his seemingly forgotten treasures: _An
Introduction to Buddhist Psychology_, and, where he extends his analysis
into a lucid, compelling comparison with Freud, _Buddhist and Freudian
Psychology_. Nothing wooky or spooky or obscure in his spot on account.
Should be required reading for anyone interested in Buddhism.

> I'm
> inclined to agree with Conze's assessment of the ālayavijñāna as one of
> the most hideous conceptual monstrosities in all of Buddhism.

Conze was clueless when it came to Yogacara -- he simply parroted DT
Suzuki's misinformed opinions. That's kind of like relying on Dick Chaney to
understand the First Amendment.

Dan Lusthaus