asunthatneversets wrote:I'm just trying to say that during that era, when the west's exposure to eastern thought was in it's infancy; mistranslated text like Evans-Wentz' which ultimately led to a prominent western psychotherapist like C.G. Jung denouncing the profundity of those teachings... has to have sustained some sort of residual effect in certain circles.
Well like told before in those days it was a very special translated text, if we do it compare to the opinion of Freud. Yeh we have to see it in relation to. So it was for those days more or less "ok" . So you do compare it from anno data 2011, go back in time.....
I mean, i commend Evans-Wentz for his effort and passion in translating those texts but they're ultimately wrong and spread falsity. And such an influential character like Jung deciding that the teachings were not credible or had nothing to offer and stating that to be so has to have had an effect.
If i take a psychologist from today and i hear what he / she is telling or explaining about mind and the moment of the dying, then Yung' s translation or book is still great
I know my friend was learning of Buddhist philosophy in his psychology or philosophy class (one of the two) and it makes me wonder if he'd even be receiving credible information... if the information had been derived from Evans-Wentz or Jung's conclusions.
Well then he was lucky, because here in Holland don't they teach the Bardo States to the students. If they did so, then the science of mind would be looking more clear. Then Buddhists who are trained in the experience about mind could take over the job of the psychologist
Ultimately it doesn't matter, those who take interest and seek the truth will find that in the teachings. But it's unfortunate that there's a possibility of someone thinking they understand what the teaching is about and even deciding it's not worth their time based on the conclusions of Jung, for example.
Then they must meet a Dzogchen Guru, he/she will make it clear, i hope so. Besides that Dharma and especial Dzogchen is not understandable for everybody
But I can't help to think that these early mistranslations still hold a place in influencing the perceptions of those who only study Evans-Wentz and C.G. Jung.
And I can't help but to suspect that there has been further mistranslations based on Evan-Wentz' and Jung's writings.
Not that they truly matter anymore due to the real teachings being readily accessible like i said but....
How much do you think these early mistranslations actually had/still have an effect?
tobes wrote:Jung is one of the last in a long line of German thinkers to have profoundly misunderstood Buddhism.
Users browsing this forum: Zeno and 15 guests