[Buddha-l] Buddhism and Psychology research

[Dan Lusthaus]

Dear Timothy,

Thanks for the input. Your comments help illustrate how contemporary science 
and psychology is still wiggling through a lot of sectarian dogmatism (the 
scientists no less than the abhidharmists).

I didn't say that Freud was once again king of the Psyche world, only that 
he was being taken more seriously than he was even a decade ago, as even 
this 2004 study from Harvard and the University of Texas at San Antonio 
shows. While there research may or may not be evidence in support of Freud's 
theory of repression, it doesn't rule it out.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/23/health/dreams-ride-on-freud-s-royal-road-study-finds.html

There is no question that rival therapies have been more hostile to Freud 
than the neuroscientists. Something oedipal, no doubt. But instead of being 
dead, gone and forgotten, he is making a comeback. On the other hand, I know 
of no neurobiologists who consult Jung for their work. Can you suggest any?

In fact you pay the highest compliment to Freud the scientist when citing 
the following:

"As modern neuroscientists
tackle once more the profound
questions of human psychology that so
preoccupied Freud, it is gratifying to find
that we can build on the foundations he
laid, instead of having to start all over
again. Even as we identify the weak
points in Freud’s far-reaching theories,
and thereby correct, revise and supplement
his work, we are excited to have the
privilege of finishing the job."

That's exactly how science works, and Freud expected precisely that to be 
the case. He wasn't afraid to revise his theories in the light of new 
evidence (e.g., thanatos, etc.), so freudians shouldn't be either.

Like Richard, you seem to conflate "therapy" with "psychology" -- therapy 
remains an art, not a science, and thus to a great extent depends on the 
artistic talent of the therapist, even more than on the particular theory 
s/he ostensibly subscribes to. Similar situation to the martial arts. Karate 
doesn't beat Taiji -- certain practitioners of one or the other martial art 
can beat certain practitioners of the same or different art. It's not about 
the art, once one gets past a certain level in any of them -- it's about the 
practitioner. (In the 1920s, however, before China banned the national 
martial arts competitions that used to happen annually, carry on for weeks, 
and often end in crippling or death for some fighters, invariably the top 
fighters were the Taijiquan folk -- not something commonly known by those 
who know little more about Taiji than its slow-moving form).

As for Jung as a Buddha, I prefer my Buddhas not to be antisemites. Same 
goes for Zen masters.

Dan