Although I have not accessed a contemporary English translation of this extract, on the face of it, Hegel’s opinion of this ancient Chinese ‘wisdom’ text, seems to be both succinct and precise.
This must imply that during the Han Dynasty, either the legend of Fu Xi was unknown, or if known, considered too improbable to be true.
Jung was not religious in the conventional sense, as through the use of psychological insight, he saw through religious structure and understood its historicity. He might be described as spiritual due to the obvious spiritual content of much of his work, but even this appellation is problematic. In reality Jung viewed religion as being a subject of much psychological interest due primarily to its obvious archetypal content. Through his developed psychological method, Jung demonstrated an often profound and startling insight into the inner structures of subjects like religion that at once swept away any unnecessary obscuration or excessive mystification, to reveal the true developmental nature of the teachings.
‘The body of Henning’s article may be considered a rehash of the old ‘Wudang’ vs. ‘Shaolin’ mythology, with the facts (where they can be established), presented in a logical, if not meandering fashion; dates, names of emperors and portions of lineages, etc. China’s ‘Self Strengthening’ movement is mentioned near the end, as the final impetus for the association of Zhang Sanfeng with the development of Taijiquan – but oddly enough, Henning (who has written in military journals), does not acknowledge that this movement developed in China as a response to the rampant Western Imperialist aggression typical of the time. Curiously Henning makes no reference to the pre-Song uses of the term ‘Taiji’ which are known to refer to the practice (and usage) of martial arts. It is ironic therefore, that Henning would refer to Chinese myths and legends as ‘ignorance’, when so much of his historical omissions and oversights could well attract a similar criticism.’
‘Psychology in the West is a relatively new field of study. As such, there is no ‘one’ agreed approach to the theory of ‘mind’ in the Western tradition. Viewpoints vary from that of the neurologist, who views every attribute of human, conscious creativity as being nothing more than a mixture of chemical reactions and electrical impulses, to the psychotherapist, who works with the thought processes, so as to achieve a ‘balanced’ and culturally ‘agreed’ state of mind. Needless to say, virtually every other view of the mind fits somewhere inbetween these two broad perspectives. This dissertation will examine the many facets of the mind, as viewed from both the Western and Eastern traditions and the consequence of this combined knowledge for the modern and post-modern human condition.’