Even if both scholars had spoken German, it would hardly have been possible
for me to complete such a detailed protocol, especially of the scholarly
exchanges. Therefore, someone had to add to the text. This would be acceptable
only if Hisamatsu were to have done so. If you should find the original of the
‘protocol’ in the Jung Archive [where I had been directed by Jaffé to find the
original German text—S.M.] I would be delighted to be able to consult it.It should be noted that Jaffé seemed to forget that Tsujimura had been present as a
translator. The protocol, as a result, became all the more important. I later obtained
permission from Lorenz Jung to make a copy of the document, the use of which was
allowed at the time only for reasons of ‘personal study and research.’ Upon securing
the material, I immediately met with Jaffé again, and went over the document with
her, comparing her transcription with the odd English text at our disposal. In further
research I have since performed and published in Japan, I counted and commented
on approximately fifty discrepancies between the two texts. (See my entry in Annual
Report from the Institute for Zen Studies, vol. 19, 1993.) In the meantime, permission
was finally obtained to publish a translation of the German protocol I had prepared
in the course of my research. The following, therefore, is the first English translation
to be published of Jaffé’s original German transcription of the 1958 conversation
between Shin’ichi Hisamatsu and Carl Gustav Jung.
16 May 1958SHIN’ICHI
HISAMATSU:
In the United States I witnessed the great spread of psychoanalysis
and talked about it with many scholars. I am very glad to speak
today with the founder of psychoanalysis. I would like to hear your
thoughts on the state of psychoanalysis today.^1
CARL G.JUNG:I would prefer to know your view first, so that I may understand
the nature of the question. Eastern language is very different from
Western conceptual language. In India, I had many conversations
with philosophers and came to realize that I always need to clarify
the question first; so as to know what my Eastern partner is
thinking. If I assume that I know what he thinks, everything will
be misconstrued.
SH: As I am no specialist in psychoanalysis, I would first like to
understand its essential position, in order to then compare it with
Zen.
CGJ: That is possible, but you must bear in mind that Zen is a philosophy
and that I am a psychologist.
SH: In a sense, one might say that Zen is a philosophy, but it is very
different from ordinary philosophy, which depends on human
intellectual activity. One might therefore say that Zen is no
philosophy. Zen is a philosophy and at the same time a religion,
but no ordinary religion. It is ‘religion and philosophy.’
THE JUNG-HISAMATSU CONVERSATION 107