[Buddha-l] Buddhism and Psychology research

[Timothy Smith]

No, the kind of thinking that keeps Shimano et. al. up and running is protective thinking.  One can critically evaluate
the literature on Jung and this issue and draw their own conclusions.  

There is an open debate as to whether  Jung was anti-semitic and, as I suggested, those interested should disabuse themselves of false notions. 
 There is clear evidence that Shimano et. al. abused their spiritual authority, I don't believe anyone is disputing that at this point in the game.

Ot sure why you feel compelled to erect this particular straw man at this point.
Timothy Smith
Office/Mobile 831.624.8138
Fax  831.659-5112
www.wheelwrightassoc.com







On Sep 3, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Dan Lusthaus wrote:

> Yes, Tim
> 
>> My view is that it has no place in this dialog unless one wants a certain 
>> dog to whip.
> 
> That's precisely the sort of thinking that has kept Shimano, et al. up and 
> running. Thanks for the reminder. And thanks for reminding us that the 
> modern secularists are as locked into dogmatic sectarianism as Richard is 
> accusing the Abhidharmists of being.
> 
> Note that Vasubandhu, one of the premier abhidharmists, produced a work that 
> is a unique genre unto itself, esp. in the Indian context. The 
> Abhidharmakosa-bhasya consists of verses more or less espousing the 
> Vaibhasika doctrinal line. The commentary on those verses, by the same 
> author, deconstructs and rejects many of those positions, offering reasoned 
> arguments for preferring positions closer to Sautrantika, Yogacara, and 
> other non-Vaibhasikas. I don't know of a single other classical Indian text 
> where an author deconstructs and refutes his own verses with his own 
> commentary. That is the antithesis of being dogmatic.
> 
> Dan 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
>