Thanks very much for your thoughtful response. These are the type of responses that I'm looking for when I write, i.e. informative, constructive, and helpful (unlike one other response I've had to this article). I certainly didn't find it patronising, and only critical where criticism was warranted. I received a shorter response with John Driggs, for whom I have much respect, making the same point.

Buddhism is one of the most difficult topics for me, because I'm not a practitioner, and have only the basic knowledge of an outsider, which perhaps inevitably means that I make assumptions and oversimplifications, and I therefore frequently get 'critical' responses.

If, as you say, Buddhism does not believe in a supernatural universe with divine entities, then I would disagree and take Jung's side. This is personally why I believe that Hinduism is more profound. However, I did point out in the article that Jung praised The Tibetan Book of the Dead for recognising deities (the inhabitants of the psyche) as both projections of the human psyche and real. I assume by this he meant that the writer took these entities seriously, if not ultimately real.

Also I believe, but am happy to be corrected, that in the early days of Buddhism (especially Tibetan?) there was a belief in deities and so on, but the naturalism developed with time.

I very much hope and believe that Jung's spirituality at the very least has parallels with Eastern traditions, whether or not it is actually borrowed or adapted. Did you read my two articles on Jung and Taoism, especially the second one?

Thanks for the helpful recommendations.