I have to say that I really love Jung. He’s one of the few thinkers who if he was still alive, I would probably make a tremendous effort to go abd try to study and work with him. So much of what he was about makes so much sense to me. And whenever I spend time away from his work and come back to it, it only seems to have gotten better.
I found a particularly brilliant passage in his autobiography last night, which I’d like to share with you here. This comes from page 276 of Memories, Dreams, Reflections. In this section, he’s reflecting on his experiences in India and the disconnect he feels with much of the Eastern religious drive towards nirvana (which he spells nirdvandva – I think these mean the same thing).
I saw that Indian spirituality contains as much of evil as of good. The Christian strives for good and succumbs to evil; the Indian feels himself to be outside good and evil, and seeks to realise this state by meditation or yoga. My objection is that, given such an attitude, neither good nor evil takes on any real outline, and this produces a certain statis. One does not really believe in evil, and one does not really believe in good. Good or evil are then regarded at most as my good or my evil, as whatever seems to me good or evil – which leaves us with the paradoxical statement that Indian spirituality lacks both evil and good, or is so burdened by contradictions that it needs nirdvandva, the liberation from opposites and from the ten thousand things.
The Indian’s goal is not moral perfection, but the condition of nirdvandva. He wishes to free himself from nature; in keeping with this aim, he seeks in meditation the condition of imagelessness and emptiness. I, on the other hand, wish to persist in the state of lively contemplation of nature and of the psychic images. I want to be freed neither from human beings, nor from myself, nor from nature; for all these appear to me the greatest of miracles. Nature, the psyche, and life appear to me like divinity unfolded – and what more could I wish for? To me the supreme meaning of Being can consist only in the fact that it is, not that its is not or is no longer.
To me there is no liberation a tout prix. I cannot be liberated from anything I do not possess, have not done or experienced. Real liberation becomes possible for me only when I have done all that I was able to do, when I have completely devoted myself to a thing and participated in it to the utmost. If I withdraw from participation, I am virtually amputating the corresponding part of my psyche. Naturally, there may be good reasons for my not immersing myself in a given experience. But then I am forced to confess my inability, and must know that I may have neglected to do something of vital importance. In this way I make amends for the lack of a positive act by the clear knowledge of my incompetence.
A man who has not passed through the inferno of his passions has never overcome them. They then dwell in the house next door, and at any moment a flame may dart out and set fire to his own house. Whenever we give up, leave behind, and forget too much, there is always the danger that the things we have neglected will return with added force.
Awesome!
- END -
ASSOCIATED CONTENT BY TIM BOUCHER (Auto-Generated)
- Marvin Minsky’s Society of Mind
- Symbols as transformers of consciousness
- Philosophical Influence on Crowley?
- Anima & Shakti
- Incaralong, Flute-Spear
9 Comments
Eastern thought is always condemned by Western religious types because they find the balance of good and evil, rather than framing it as good vs. evil.
The above quote is interesting because it reflects Nietzche’s concept of the Will To Power– going beyond good and evil. But Nietzche wasn’t terribly interested in spiritual matters or balance– he just wanted to destroy decadent Christian morality (as it manifested itself in Western civilization) and advocate a new set of values, of which his idea of the ubermensch represented.
Nietzche was well-steeped in Eastern ideals– “Thus Spake Zarathustra” is his best treatise on the subject– but he wasn’t very adept at applying it to his own life, the way Jung seemed to do.
The good and evil part isnt what interests me. I’ll put the part I like in bold.
For a really in depth Jungian perspectivge on Christianity, dependent heavily on influence from both Alchemy and Gnosticism, read AION. I consider it his most pivotal spiritual work, though it can get kind of complicated and crazy sometimes.
“to persist in the state of lively contemplation of nature and of the psychic images” sounds like an echo chamber, since all experience is so colored by our own view and habituation. wouldn’t exploration of the miracle of experience be best done *without* being fooled by our own biases?
i think emptiness is often misunderstood somewhat nihilistically. but i don’t think that’s correct. it was described to me as the way to fully appreciate the richness of nature — without seeing a fuzzy, image clouded by conceptualization and limiting bias.
for example, if you have a flower arrangement at home, at first you might have an open, fresh experience of it. then as you see it more and more there is some tendency to ‘name’ it, to remember it, to make your experience of it ordinary and conceptual. you may well enter the room and just see ‘the flowers’, a concept, and your direct, fresh experience of it is gone. in the Indian practices of emptiness, one still has the concepts but the awareness that they are just an elaboration is not lost, one does not reduce everything to the level of ordinary, so one sees things as if for the first time at will. suzuki roshi called this “beginner’s mind”
Dude, I am in love with that part you put in bold. That’s exactly how I feel.
I don’t necessarily agree with Jung on his labelling on all Indian spiritually as essentially transcending nature.
Some texts, such as Patanjalis yoga sutras, equate Samadhi (nirvana) with stilling the mind and transcending the duality of the physical plane or Prakriti (much like the Buddhist concepts, which are part of a similar tradition). However the Upanishads (which are far older and come from a different tradition) talk of enlightenment coming from the realisation that ‘Atman is one with Brahman’ or you’re individual spirit is actually just an aspect of the Universal Spirit.
To me (and I could be wrong here) this Atman/Brahman view is much more inclusive, I am you and you are me and we are all together, as opposed to the Gnostic like transcendental traditions.
What? That makes no sense. Are you asking if we can better experience things by not experiencing them?
If you’ve read any Jung, you’ll recognize echos of this in the collective vs. individual unconscious.
What? That makes no sense. Are you asking if we can better experience things by not experiencing them?
not at all, but experiencing them with a completely open mind. that’s what emptiness is getting at. we generally don’t have an open mind. when we drink a cup of tea we’re poring a concept from a conceptual cup into our conceptual mouth. but if we can drink a cup of tea like it’s the first time we’ve ever experienced tea, a cup, and our mouth then we’re truly experiencing it directly. i’ve heard enlightenment described as “smelling tobacco for the first time, intense, vivid, and beyond description.”