Jungian psychology and psychotherapy was compared with Theravada Buddhism. Several methods were employed: a review of literature, including a review of Jung's writings on Eastern disciplines; a theoretical exposition; and a practical case-study approach.
The latter involved meditation teachers and Jungian analysts who responded to interviews of counseling clientele. This approach found little similarity between the two groups. The Jungians leaned toward a description of the suffering and emphasized a facilitation of the individual's natural growth processes. This emphasis naturally precluded the formulation of clear goals for the clients. Buddhists were more oriented toward the causes of suffering, and although they also valued an empathic, therapeutic environment, they went beyond this with a repertoire of specific strategies for therapy, i.e., moral conduct and meditation. Compared to the Jungians, Theravada goals for therapy were more clearly delineated, idealistic, and virtuous.
This data supported the theoretical treatment which found that one of the major distinctions between the two disciplines is between the Theravada ideal of perfection and the Jungian goal of psychic balance. This major distinction arises from two opposing concepts of the psyche: the Jungian view that the conscious and unconscious are clearly demarcated, and the Buddhist view that the conscious/unconscious dichotomy is a continuum. The former requires that the unconscious realm always remain; the latter allows for an expansion of consciousness wherein it replaces unconsciousness.
In the Buddhist system, ignornace is the common root of all mental suffering, which implies that psychic suffering can be addressed simultaneouly and eventually eliminated entirely by uprooting ignorance. The Jungian view holds that "normal" suffering is inevitable and constitutes life itself, and only "neurotic" suffering, which arises from the discrepancy between a conscious attitude and the trend of the unconscious, can be eliminated. This idea stems from Jung's theory of opposites, which is not acknowledged by Theravadins.
These two transpersonal disciplines are irreconcilable and are antipathetic in most respects. Not only do they differ in their approach to helping individuals, but even their ideals are in opposition. Theravadins would find the Jungian goals unsatisfactory, and the Jungians would find the Theravada goals impossible or at best undesirable.
