Freud, as I also understand him, did not work to make his patients “whole.” Psychoanalysis as practiced by Freud was a negative psychology, that is, it saw the analysand as injured and aimed only to help him overcome learned neurosis. Freud’s patients had more immediate problems than being unhappy or not feeling whole. They were crippled by inner turmoil. If a positive psychiatry seeks to put someone in touch with his creativity to better actualize his unique self, Freud’s interest — imo — was more focused on revealing the contradictions in the patient’s thinking and in revealing the paradoxes that prevented the analysand from functioning better in the world. It was this functional aspect that interested Freud most. Freud, of course, had ideas about the structure of society but his concern as a doctor was to help the patient function as painlessly as possible within that structure, such as it was. I don’t know enough about Buddhism to comment on its similarities with psychoanalysis. It is certainly much older than the latter and, like psychoanalysis, came to take on many forms these often contradicting what I understand to be Buddhism’s basic tenets as a secular belief system. Capitalism was also a later development and Yes Buddhism must certainly reject consumerism as a means to happiness. Interesting attempt by the authors to flesh out the similarities between Freud and Buddha.