[Buddha-l] Sabba Sutta

[Richard Hayes]

Dan Lusthaus wrote:

> 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.

The regret that Jung expressed was in a piece written in 1936. He had
earlier written about the collective unconscious in 1902. It was that
work that had been misunderstood. In 1954 we wrote pieces in which he
presented refinements on his theory of archetypes. I see no hint of any
intellectual dishonesty in any of this. On the contrary, I think that
refining one's theories in the light of criticism and further research
and reflection is a pretty good sign.

> 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.

Actually, I think a bit of research would uncover that Jung was Swiss,
nor German. Switzerland, like all sensible nations, was neutral during
the Second World War.

For some reason, I have never been able to ascribe to the notion that a
human being must be perfect in every respect before credence can be
given to any of his ideas. Jung was flawed in many respects, often
distressingly so. In this he was not so unique. Despite his flaws he
came up with some good psychological insights and improved dramatically
on some of Freud's theories by showing just how bankrupt they were. Like
Waldron, I think that some of Jung's insights are congruent with some
aspects of Buddhist psychological theory.

> No need to drag Jung into this. I much prefer Padmasiri de Silva's
> exposition of the anusayas, etc.

Granted, there is no *need* to mention Jung, but there is also no harm
in doing so when doing so shed light on a difficult subject. Preferences
(even yours) are simply a matter of taste. My tastes have room for Jung,
and I also have a high regard for de Silva. I also think very highly of
Waldron's work.

> Conze was clueless when it came to Yogacara

If a person must be clueless about something, I think Yogācāra is a very
good choice. The more I have learned about it, the more I have regretted
the time wasted looking into it. But that is purely my preference.
Preferences (even mine) are simply a matter of taste.

Taste, of course, can always be improved by genetic modification.
 
-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico