Carl Jung's "Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle"

[Zhen Li]

I don't really have time to give an in-depth review of this book, but I thought it was interesting from a Buddhist perspective.

Jung identifies various kinds of "meaningful coincidences" of multiple events that cannot be explained by scientific methods reliant upon a paradigm of space and time and he suggests that such synchronicities are seen as meaningful by a human observer in the same way that causal phenomena are meaningfully correlated, despite such coincidences lacking any apparent causal connection—hence acausal connections.

He has a number of examples, some of which are quite interesting. Astrological coincidences in particular. As with Jung, I also noticed that the I-Ching is quite good at producing meaningful coincidences. These are not black and white causal or predictive coincidences—they are situations in which meaning is attributed to phenomena that don't have an apparent causal connection, and Jung sees this attribution of meaning, in particular as a way in which the unconscious archetypes can express themselves.

From the Buddhist perspective, I see no issue with things being explained outside of a scientific paradigm. ESP is found in ṛddhi powers, for example. But I do think that a rejection of causality in connections that cannot be explained using the scientific paradigms (except for dubious things like quantum entanglement, etc.) is not necessarily needed. Causal connections must be present, but we just can't conceive of them. I think in the Buddhist case this becomes particularly clear in the situation of mental projections and mind-only. I have heard similar explanations in terms of simulation theory—but this is limited by the paradigm of our understanding of simulations and computers, etc., which mind-only not only predates but provides a clearer model for how such things are possible.

[Kim O'Hara]

That takes me back a few years!

I liked it when I read it, around the same time as I was reading Hesse (they were contemporaries so their concerns overlap a fair bit) and Aldous Huxley (Doors of Perception, which was written a bit later).

What I'm inclined to say now is that everything is connected to everything (remember Indra's Net) and Jung had become aware of some connections that he couldn't rationally explain. And because he couldn't explain them, he whacked a label on them and treated the label as an explanation.

But bear in mind that this is based insecurely on my fuzzy recollection of what my younger self understood of the book.

...From the Buddhist perspective, I see no issue with things being explained outside of a scientific paradigm. ...

I would say the same thing more strongly: Science doesn't know everything, although it thinks it does. What it actually does is ignore anything it can't explain, which is an enormous amount - starting, for our purposes, with the nature of consciousness and including "why is there something (i.e. the perceived universe) rather than nothing?"
And, strangely, it doesn't really matter very much whether the universe "really" exists or we only think it does: if we can't tell the difference, we have no alternative to dealing with it as we perceive it to be.
With, for that matter, all its embedded 'acausal connections'. Indra's Net is a perfectly good metaphor in either case.

I think.


Kim

[Zhen Li]

What I'm inclined to say now is that everything is connected to everything (remember Indra's Net) and Jung had become aware of some connections that he couldn't rationally explain. And because he couldn't explain them, he whacked a label on them and treated the label as an explanation.

Right, that's precisely my impression. I think Jung was not only aware but deeply familiar with these kinds of connections. His system of the structure of the unconscious is an attempt to systematise it. I think from a Buddhist perspective, archetypes may be a personalisation or imputation of narrative meaning into patterned factors present in the arisings of consciousness.

And, strangely, it doesn't really matter very much whether the universe "really" exists or we only think it does: if we can't tell the difference, we have no alternative to dealing with it as we perceive it to be.
With, for that matter, all its embedded 'acausal connections'. Indra's Net is a perfectly good metaphor in either case.

Right, good point there.

The point that Jung really emphasised, I think, is the imputation of meaning. This may help with overcoming a particular trama, but in the bigger scheme, I'm not sure this really matters so much from the Buddhist perspective compared with clarifying one's vision. Meaning, after all, continues to work within the realm of existence and non-existence, both of which will inevitably lead to dead ends from the Buddhist POV. X means Y, assumes that X and Y matter, rather than questioning who it is that sees X and imputes Y—and why.

[Malcolm]

His system of the structure of the unconscious is an attempt to systematise it.

His collective unconscious was a ontological argument, predicated on a transpersonal consciousness.

This is entirely incompatible with Buddhadharma.

[Queequeg]

I just figure those coincidences are due to phenomena akin to a wave rippling through the media. To the extent that we are vectors in this media, we play a part.

I find this stuff happens constantly. I shrug and don't read much into it. No more than if I were floating in the ocean, bobbing on the waves and catching glimpses of other floating objects around me on the crests.

I am Queequeg and this is my element.

[Jokingfish]

Funny me, cuz didn't read whole thread (most of it did though..), but i was thinking about synchronicities, so, when you put attention to something, you get results. If your attention changes, same with results. Basically that is synchronicity, to see what you see. Like, if you're angry and you're browsing Internet, if you touch the screen 0.08 second faster algorithm changes, if you manage to relax, it changes.

So, the synchronicities are coincidence +what is your mind power, attention, what you see, understand. But.. Two objects can't be in one spot, so if you scream in forest, birds fly away, because of that these birds change place, another person later meets these birds, looks at them, that takes time to look (if no scream no look), and in the forest because of distraction changes course from total west to more to North, then meets other things etc and then etc... So that is i think how these things work so. You know, walls have ears too why?

(not sure if im correct though, wondering what others think)

[Zhen Li]

Yes, well I suppose the underlying principle would be dependent origination—until we are awakened we cannot fully comprehend it, and might, in the meantime, interpret it as something supernatural.

[Jokingfish]

Im not sure because there's a saying, you see what you want to see, so there's a lot in intention...

Some people wake up on exact time...

Did Buddha ever adress synchronicity, auspicious coincidence? I looked on Google, didn't manage to find much