Just a few reflections on what I see as a tendency to attempt to bring cultural bagge into our our understanding of Dhamma which look as though it might shed light, but actually acts as barrier to understanding what the Buddha taught.
At the moment i would like to look at the bundle of often contradictory odds and ends that is Jungian Psychotherapy.
On the surface it appears to have commonalities with certain aspects of Dhamma..reinforced by Jungs tome's being illustrated by decontextualised Buddhist imagery.
I would argue that various concepts that are the at the core of Jungian analysis are not only not found in Buddhadhamma but are at odds with The Buddhas teaching..concepts like the Shadow Personality have no equivilance in the kandhas. The same with the Archetypes as envisaged by Jung.
These concepts may be fruitful ground for artistic expression, in the same way that Christianity served as an insipration for the artists of the Renaissance, but they have no objective reality.
In this I would suggest , Theravada Buddhism and modern psychology have a common view.
Modern psychology many are surprised to learn, would not touch either Jung or Freud with a barge pole.
Their ideas are seen as outmoded and unverifiable. The only reference to them in any degree level course in Clinical Psychology is as historical footnotes.
In the context of a Theravadin forum the thing to note is the complete absence of anything akin to Jungian thought in Buddhadhamma
Which does not prevent a widespread assumption that those equivilants must somehow sorta be there there...
For anyone interested one place to start might be an exercise in which Jung's ( or anyone elses ) concept of The Unconscious is placed into the schemata of the khandas...
