It seems as I read Jung and post-Jungian folks, there is a splintering of consensus as to whether religion/faith/spirituality is a neurosis, an immature interpretation of the ways of the Psyche, or a valid path to that same Psyche. Jung states that if an individual is following a faith with a certain intensity, then most problems of the Psyche are contained, yet he is highly suspicious of the collective consciousness, which can be interpreted as the Church or any other "organized" religion.
How do you see depth psychology relating to faith traditions?
Replies
Amen = So Be It
I'm really glad that you brought this up, as there has always been a connection, I feel, between the study of comparative religion and depth psychology. Understanding this begins with the recognition of the truth that underlies perennial philosophy: all religions interpret the same truth in different ways appropriate to their specific situation (the parallel with archetypes is obvious). Because the same phenomena is interpreted in different ways at different times, I believe that the analytical psychology tradition is actually an expression of a quest for personal and universal knowledge that has lasted for thousands of years. Indeed, is it not ridiculous to say that Jung, great visionary that he was, was the first intelligent human being in 5000 years to realize the workings of inner life?
If we want to see how different religions teach us about the search for the Self, we first must accept what Joseph Campbell spent much of his life teaching: that myths and religion are better viewed as psychological metaphors. Myth is intimately connected with the unconscious mind, as we all know, and I think it would be fair to say that religion similarly taps into the irrational contents of our collective and personal unconscious. For instance, Taoism teaches that the universe is made of pairs of opposites that are equivalent and must be balanced...much like how Jungian analysis teaches that the Psyche is fundamentally dualistic and must be in a state of balance and integration to be healthy. The same parallels can be found in Hinduism, Buddhism, and much of tribal religious life.
Also, and I'm not going to bother trying to integrate this into a larger paragraph, I distinctly remember reading that Jung said there is a religious function in each person's unconscious...which, in my interpretation, is a circuitous way of saying that everyone believes in God (which is a poor term with bad connotations for my purposes) and therefore debating God's existence is pointless because we all believe in the unknowable whether we are conscious of it or not.
Even though religion is an excellent way to approach the unconscious mind, it has been sadly misinterpreted in the west because of the flawed evolution of the western monotheistic tradition. As a young person, I can tell you that among intelligent teenagers religion is mocked and in a less anecdotal sense sociologically most 1st world countries are becoming less interested in religion. This is because the tradition that originates with Judaism teaches the wisdom of many of its prophets incorrectly. Judaism, Christianity and Islam all teach that there is good and there is evil in the universe, and it is our duty to "fight" evil inside and outside ourselves, that there is a specific, masculine, intelligent entity called "God" who resides in a physical place called heaven, that we must never identify our sinful selves with God, and that our reward for our struggles of the material would be compensated in the next life. They also teach that a variety of supernatural phenomena literally happened: that Jesus was a man who was literally immaculately conceived, for instance. This patent nonsense, which goes against everything that our Western rationality has taught us, is proudly upheld by the various monotheistic churches, who wonder why they are losing the "war" as it were for the soul. These religions teach their followers to be profoundly psychologically unhealthy due to the rejection of the possibility of "evil" (e.g. sexual desire) inside themselves and prevent them, ironically enough, from confronting their unconscious minds. I could go on for pages, but this has already ran on quite a bit, and I've expressed these ideas rather crudely as it is.
TL;DR Western religion doesn't confront the psyche as it should, and religion can only remain relevant in the west if it undergoes a fundamental shift away from fear and repression and toward psychological balance.
@Theodore:
Religion: Could we say that religions are formed when the inner archetypal energies "rise" through the collective unconscious to meet the social contructivism of the collective consciousness in the varying societal contexts of culture and history? In cultures that valued such inner information, a rich cultural expression of these images emerged - religion as an example. In cultures where such information was not valued, such created imagery was ignored or condemned (although condemning a thing gives it its own life in the culture). Even Jung, I believe, stated that if religions had remained "whole" and healthy, there would be no need for analytical psychology.
As to modern day versions (or perversions) of Christianity, I believe this particular religion is fragmenting under the weight of many years/generations of being co-opted by the ruling classes as a means to manipulate the masses. Yes, I do believe, with Marx, that religion as it is used and abused by those in power is the opium of the masses. A religion closer to its essentials will have to address the daily experiences of the world here-and-now rather than retreat to platitudes, dogmatics, and unexamined myths. I'm not giving up on my understanding of the gifts Christianity (indeed, any religion that has stood the test of time) has to offer much as Jung did not give up trying to rectify Christianity by spending so much time responding to its strengths, weaknesses, and archetypal images.
IF the internet is a human domain to transcend our geography - what is the domain to transcend our cultural identity?
cheers,
Bob.
I wrote the poem below as a response to the feminine aspect missing in christianity - or should i say over-shadowed! by the make archetype? with a gentle nod to the mythopoeaic teleos of Joseph Cambell
Bless her from the bottom of our hearts.
Cheers,
Bob.
equal -sequel. nice couplet. not to shabby ( or as my poet friend would say, "not to wabbie" ) . some good lines. ...keep up the verse.....Jeff
Esther,
I fully agree that the deepest Christianity has yet to be realized and I believe it relates to our approach to the image of Jesus and the understanding of the Holy Spirit. Jung was concerned that the Christian faith had denied the presence of the feminine and that in the raising of Mary, there was at least a chance that the feminine might balance out the masculine focus so prevalent in the history of Christianity.
I'm believing that depth psychology can deepen an understanding of the faith but the next move would need to be moving the focus from constantly, unconsciously repeating Jesus stories to a conscious appreciation of the Holy Spirit in everyday phenomena. Even Jesus said he had to go so that the 'third act" (my image) could take place to the fulfillment of the revelation of the numinous. (Indeed, in Greek, the Holy Spirit is feminine.) Maybe we need to move away from all the focus on literal-historical debates about Jesus and move to a more phenomenological-communal discussion related to the numinous in life. What say you?
Seems like anytime a demi-god is created for whatever reasons, the "for whatever reasons" becomes the driving force of the followers, even when the individual's message may be contrary to the desires of the masses. As to cleaning up history, its the only way to keep a naive optimism going, yet such becomes the foundation of simplistic radical movements.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next