[Buddha-l] Buddhism and Psychology research

[Richard Hayes]

On Sep 3, 2010, at 4:09, "Dan Lusthaus" <vasubandhu at earthlink.net> wrote:

> 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.

What caused Jung to criticize Freud was precisely his inability to jettison pet theories in the face of evidence. That was also Karl Popper's observation, and it was the principal theme in Jeffrey Masson's book the Assault on Truth. 

> Like Richard, you seem to conflate "therapy" with "psychology" --

Neither Timothy nor I conflate these two categories. That we appear to Lusthaus to be conflating them seems to be a persistent Lusthausian fantasy. Or perhaps he is thinking of a career with Fox News, where the main strategy is just to repeat something so many times that some people think they believe it. 

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

Timothy's reference to Jung as a modern Buddha is a rhetorical flourish that made me chuckle because it appealed to my robust sense of irony and hyperbole. On a more serious note, I think Freud, Jung, and James Hollis are all as close to bodhisattvahood as anyone in recent history can be. When one thinks of all the unnecessary personal suffering that has been relieved by therapists following their methods and inspiration, we find the principal goal of Buddhism being achieved through their work. My guess is that quite a few more people have been relieved of the pain associated with unresolved traumatic experiences through psychotherapy than through abhidharma, but that's just a hunch. I have no data to support it. 

Richard