[Buddha-l] Buddhism and Psychology research

[Dan Lusthaus]

Tim,

> Don't see anything new here, probably my fault.  I think the evidence on 
> Jung is at best contradictory, you obviously
> see him as a raging anti-semite.  We're in the present now, and in the 
> present, were I sitting on the jury, I would
> acquit Jung of these charges as have many others who've gone through the 
> same evidence you site.

The "evidence" has been tightly controlled. I suggest finding a copy of the 
original publication by Bollingen of the Zarathustra lectures, and reading 
the lengthy introduction to it written by someone who was then a leading 
British Jungian analyst. The evidence when viewed clearly, after removing 
the smokescreens and ambiguations, even with the lacunae in the record still 
in effect from the Jung defenders, is unambiguous. Sorry.

> It does seem to me, however, that you are far more attached to enhancing 
> Freud's image than others here are to
> embellishing, or de-tarnishing Jung's.

Shame on me for pointing out that some leading hard-core scientists are 
rediscovering Freud and finding him not so useless or out to lunch after 
all.

>What was that about miscreants we like?

Freud was not a miscreant, though, to balance him against Jung, some here 
would like to imagine he was. While Freud is often credited/blamed for the 
sexual revolution, he (unlike Jung) did not sleep with his patients. He 
chastised Jung for doing so. One person's miscreant is another's 
bodhisattva. And vice versa.

Dan