Your / "a" Buddhist interpretation of Jungian Synchronicities?

[Matt J]

But those are still merely explanations /interpretations /rationalizations of personal experiences.

Yes, of course. But this doesn't mean they are inventing things whole cloth. They are connecting the dots, so to speak, in a different way.

It’s still one step removed from the direct experience one has of “being”.

I don't know about that. Plenty of theists have direct experiences, but how they explain those experiences is different. Connecting with the Spirit in Christianity might be an important part of the practice. For certain Buddhists, it may be just a nyam to let go of.

The error I think it is presuming that other spiritual practitioners are less intelligent, less discerning, less experience based, etc. than we are.

[Malcolm]

The error I think it is presuming that other spiritual practitioners are less intelligent, less discerning, less experience based, etc. than we are.

They may be more intelligent, more discerning, and have more experience (whatever that means), but outside of Buddhadharma, they don't have correct view. This is why the Buddha declared in many sūtras that outside of his dharma and vinaya, there were no stream entrants, etc., in other words, no awakened people.

Also, he excluded the possibility of pratyekabuddhas while his Dharma was present in the world. Of course, no one is binding you to accept this.

[Danny]

The error I think it is presuming that other spiritual practitioners are less intelligent, less discerning, less experience based, etc. than we are.

They may be more intelligent, more discerning, and have more experience (whatever that means), but outside of Buddhadharma, they don't have correct view. This is why the Buddha declared in many sūtras that outside of his dharma and vinaya, there were no stream entrants, etc., in other words, no awakened people.

Also, he excluded the possibility of pratyekabuddhas while his Dharma was present in the world. Of course, no one is binding you to accept this.

That’s a critical point. Anybody can experience “day dreaming” but it’s not a path to liberation.

[Matt J]

Maybe those are provisional teachings for people who lack confidence in Buddhism or who feel insecure about their practice.

They may be more intelligent, more discerning, and have more experience (whatever that means), but outside of Buddhadharma, they don't have correct view. This is why the Buddha declared in many sūtras that outside of his dharma and vinaya, there were no stream entrants, etc., in other words, no awakened people.

Also, he excluded the possibility of pratyekabuddhas while his Dharma was present in the world. Of course, no one is binding you to accept this.

[n8pee]

They may be more intelligent, more discerning, and have more experience (whatever that means), but outside of Buddhadharma, they don't have correct view. This is why the Buddha declared in many sūtras that outside of his dharma and vinaya, there were no stream entrants, etc., in other words, no awakened people.

My teacher once confided that he thought there were likely bodhisattvas among other religions (specifically Christianity in this context if I recall correctly).

[PadmaVonSamba]

But those are still merely explanations /interpretations /rationalizations of personal experiences.

Yes, of course. But this doesn't mean they are inventing things whole cloth. They are connecting the dots, so to speak, in a different way.

It’s still one step removed from the direct experience one has of “being”.

I don't know about that. Plenty of theists have direct experiences, but how they explain those experiences is different. Connecting with the Spirit in Christianity might be an important part of the practice. For certain Buddhists, it may be just a nyam to let go of.

The error I think it is presuming that other spiritual practitioners are less intelligent, less discerning, less experience based, etc. than we are.

Not saying that at all.
You are actually confirming what I said.
“Connecting the dots” is simply coming up with a theory to explain what is experienced.
It isn’t the experience.

It’s the difference between, say, having a dream,
and then theorizing that your dream is connected somehow with something beyond the dream itself.

Your experience of thinking that theory may be an overwhelming spiritual experience too. But that’s merely how thinking about the theory is experienced.

[PadmaVonSamba]

Does it suggest some grand consciousness and oneness that we are all tapped into?

Such an entity is strictly refuted in Buddhadharma.

The thing is, a grand consciousness or any other theory isn’t something that one can immediately detect from the experience of one’s own being (another way of saying it is produced by the aggregates).

If your nose itches, you feel that directly.
That’s not the same as “I feel we are all part of a great itchy nose” which is merely a theory, even though one may believe very strongly in that theory or “feel” that it must be so.

[Malcolm]

Maybe those are provisional teachings for people who lack confidence in Buddhism or who feel insecure about their practice.

No, it is a simple observation that only dependent origination is correct view, and that this is the unique teaching of the Buddha. We can always make excuses and object to this and that. But at the end of the day we have to shit or get off the pot.

[Jesse]

Does it suggest some grand consciousness and oneness that we are all tapped into?

Such an entity is strictly refuted in Buddhadharma.

The thing is, a grand consciousness or any other theory isn’t something that one can immediately detect from the experience of one’s own being (another way of saying it is produced by the aggregates).

If your nose itches, you feel that directly.
That’s not the same as “I feel we are all part of a great itchy nose” which is merely a theory, even though one may believe very strongly in that theory or “feel” that it must be so.

Again I'm not implying or suggesting a universal consciousness, a god, or any other thing. Only that there is a 'perspective' where "itching one's nose" is itching all noses, in all times and places.

A boundless host of enlightening beings
(bodhisattvas), the congregation at the site of
enlightenment, were all gathered there: by means of the
ability to manifest the lights and inconceivable sounds
of the Buddhas, they fashioned nets of the finest jewels,
from which came forth all the realms of action of the
spiritual powers of the Buddhas, and in which were
reflected images of the abodes of all beings.
Also, by virtue of the aid of the spiritual power of the
Buddha, they embraced the entire cosmos in a single
thought.
Their lion seats were high, wide, and beautiful. The
bases were made of jewels, their nets of lotus blossoms,
their tableaus of pure, exquisite gemstones. They were
adorned with various flowers of all colors. Their roofs,
chambers, steps, and doors were adorned by the images
of all things. The branches and fruits of jewel trees
surrounded them, arrayed at intervals.
Clouds of radiance of jewels reflected each other: the
Buddhas of the ten directions conjured regal pearls, and
the exquisite jewels in the topknots of all the
enlightening beings all emanated light, which came and
illuminated them.
Furthermore, sustained by the spiritual power of all
Buddhas, they expounded the vast perspective of the
Enlightened Ones, their subtle tones extending afar,
there being no place they did not reach.
At that time, the Buddha, the World Honored One,
in this setting, attained to supreme, correct awareness
of all things. His knowledge entered into all times with
complete equanimity; his body filled all worlds; his
voice universally accorded with all lands in the ten
directions. Like space, which contains all forms, he
made no discrimination among all objects. And, as
space extends everywhere, he entered all lands with
equanimity. His body forever sat omnipresent in all
sites of enlightenment. Among the host of enlightening
beings, his awesome light shone clearly, like the sun
emerging, illumining the world. The ocean of myriad
virtues which he practiced in all times was thoroughly
pure, and he constantly demonstrated the production of
all the buddha-lands, their boundless forms and
spheres of light extending throughout the entire
cosmos, equally and impartially.
He expounded all truths, like spreading great clouds.
Each of his hairtips was able to contain all worlds
without interference, in each manifesting immeasurable
spiritual powers, teaching and civilizing all sentient
beings. His body extended throughout the ten
directions, yet without coming or going. His knowledge
entered into all forms and realized the emptiness of
things. All the miraculous displays of the Buddhas of
past, present, and future, were all seen in his light, and
all the adornments of inconceivable eons were revealed.

Nets of jewels, exquisite fragrant banners,
Brilliant lamps hung like clouds;
Covered with various decorations,
The world-transcending true knower sits within.
Everywhere he manifests clouds of mystic displays,
Those clouds teaching throughout the world,
Harmonizing and calming down all sentient beings:
All this appears from the Buddha's palace.
Trees of gems bloom with fine flowers
Having no peer in all the world;
The embellishments of the lands of all times
Reveal their reflections therein.
Everywhere there are heaps of jewels;
Their light blazes in countless hues.
Gates and doors open at intervals all around;
The beams and ceiling are especially beautiful.
The Buddha's palace is inconceivable;
Its pure radiance contains every form—
In it appear all palaces
A Buddha sitting in each,
The Buddha's palace is boundless;
The Naturally Awakened One abides therein.
All the masses from all ten directions
Come gather around the Buddha.

From the Avataðsaka Sütra

[PadmaVonSamba]

Such an entity is strictly refuted in Buddhadharma.

The thing is, a grand consciousness or any other theory isn’t something that one can immediately detect from the experience of one’s own being (another way of saying it is produced by the aggregates).

If your nose itches, you feel that directly.
That’s not the same as “I feel we are all part of a great itchy nose” which is merely a theory, even though one may believe very strongly in that theory or “feel” that it must be so.

Again I'm not implying or suggesting a universal consciousness, a god, or any other thing. Only that there is a 'perspective' where "itching one's nose" is itching all noses, in all times and places.

Nobody is disputing that such a view or perspective exists.
The point is, it doesn’t exist based on one’s immediate experience of being.
As Malcolm already said, explaining why Buddhism rejects such an idea:

One's consciousness is an appearance for oneself. A cosmic consciousness is not. Hence the former can be designated nominally, the latter cannot.

This was the reply to a question in the original posting, with regards to coincidence;

Do you think that maybe they are perhaps visions of one's past life and how past Karma is repeated in the future? Does it suggest some grand consciousness and oneness that we are all tapped into? Do spirits, Devas, demons, or ghosts reveal things to people like that?

[Jesse]

The thing is, a grand consciousness or any other theory isn’t something that one can immediately detect from the experience of one’s own being (another way of saying it is produced by the aggregates).

If your nose itches, you feel that directly.
That’s not the same as “I feel we are all part of a great itchy nose” which is merely a theory, even though one may believe very strongly in that theory or “feel” that it must be so.

Again I'm not implying or suggesting a universal consciousness, a god, or any other thing. Only that there is a 'perspective' where "itching one's nose" is itching all noses, in all times and places.

Nobody is disputing that such a view or perspective exists.
The point is, it doesn’t exist based on one’s immediate experience of being.
As Malcolm already said, explaining why Buddhism rejects such an idea:

One's consciousness is an appearance for oneself. A cosmic consciousness is not. Hence the former can be designated nominally, the latter cannot.

This was the reply to a question in the original posting, with regards to coincidence;

Do you think that maybe they are perhaps visions of one's past life and how past Karma is repeated in the future? Does it suggest some grand consciousness and oneness that we are all tapped into? Do spirits, Devas, demons, or ghosts reveal things to people like that?

I'm not arguing, just linking a description of that perspective, as it's something quite beautiful.

[muni]

“I feel we are all part of a great itchy nose”

[DGA]

Jung was kind of a weirdo.

[Heimdall]

They may be more intelligent, more discerning, and have more experience (whatever that means), but outside of Buddhadharma, they don't have correct view. This is why the Buddha declared in many sūtras that outside of his dharma and vinaya, there were no stream entrants, etc., in other words, no awakened people.

My teacher once confided that he thought there were likely bodhisattvas among other religions (specifically Christianity in this context if I recall correctly).

That doesn't necessarily mean they learned of it through their institution. They could've through the good things in their institution in spite of the institution per se.

[Supramundane]

A Buddhist interpretation of synchronicity? These are, in fact, two ideas that I would never put together lol.

Things get convoluted very quickly.

Jung put forward a theory that you might call "acausal parallelism." As someone has already mentioned in this thread, as human beings, we tend to do this naturally, meaning that we tend to ascribe meanings and find patterns in randomness.

Jung did not conceive of synchronicity as some sort of confirmation bias that he was guarding against, au contraire, he saw in it some sort of universal meaning or connectivity among all events.

Freud on the other hand was trying to build a reputable science and prove to a very skeptical public that it was possible to treat mental illness with a "talking cure". As a result, the two of them were often at loggerheads and often quarreled, finally parting ways.

In one of their last meetings, in fact, when Jung was trying to impress upon Freud the importance of the supernatural, there was suddenly a loud bang, as if from one of the pieces of wooden furniture settling in the room.

Jung yelled out "aha, did you hear that!" Freud looked bemused at the point Jung was trying to make. Jung yelled out, "... and you will hear it again!" At just that moment, the strange bang occurred again.

Freud shook his head ruefully and brushed off the whole incident, whereas Jung saw it as some sort of supernatural vindication of his theories. It was a bit like Conan Doyle versus Houdini....

As for Buddhism, Buddhism is more concerned with the nature of ultimate reality. If synchronicity means interconnectedness and dependent origination, then there could be some overlap. But I think for the most part synchronicity is relegated to the thought systems of the New Age movement, The Celestine prophecy, Sting, etc etc.

Jung is sometimes is quite a good read, but frankly, for me, he's somewhere in between Joseph Campbell and the Ancient Aliens guy lol.

(Probably closer to the Ancient Aliens guy, however hahaha. --- As a final footnote, Carl Jung did write a notable essay on UFOs, if you are interested in that aspect of his work).

[KristenM]

Silly questions. What’s the technical explanation of siddhis? In Buddhism does time exist, or is it an illusion? And I’m not positing a universal consciousness. Just an honest question. Is a cigar always a cigar.

[Supramundane]

Haha you are right, there are certain points of convergence between Buddhism and psychoanalysis, 'sometimes a cigar is just a cigar' does sound like a Zen koan, doesn't it?

But I think that is simply a case of synchronicity LOL

By the way, I didn't mention UFOs randomly: in fact Jung's analysis of them was that they were actually mandala symbols. Jung was a great votary of the mandala.

[DGA]

My Buddhist interpretation of Jungian synchronicities is that this line of thinking isn't relevant to Buddhist practice as I understand it.

I also think CG Jung has become the archetypal New Age nonsense peddlar.

[Supramundane]

My Buddhist interpretation of Jungian synchronicities is that this line of thinking isn't relevant to Buddhist practice as I understand it.

I also think CG Jung has become the archetypal New Age nonsense peddlar.

Agree.

Agree.