God, Archtypes, and Jungian Psychology

God the Father and Christian women

That orthodox Christian theology is thought to be somehow hostile to women or inadequate for their psychology remains a great mystery to me. It is not just that Christianity, compared to the other great religions, accords a remarkable place to women-after all, the Virgin Mary is the highest form of human saintliness. Women were part and parcel of the Gospel story; they were among those who ministered to and helped Jesus. He treated them with unusual love and respect. It was women-far more than the Apostles-who showed loyalty and support at the time of his Crucifixion, and it was women who first were told of the Resurrection. This in a Jewish society that gave less importance to women's testimony even in court. Women were major contributors to the apostolate of Saint Paul. Holy women surrounded many of the great early saints, such as Saint Jerome. Thousands of the early martyrs were women. Large numbers of the greatest-and widely acknowledged saints were women. When I became a Catholic, it was to me mind-boggling-coming from a secular and Protestant background-to find so many women held up as models of veneration and imitation. As I mentioned earlier, there is simply nothing like this great tradition of female accomplishment and of honor paid to women in any other religion or, for that matter, in any other domain of human endeavor.

So the idea that the idea of God the Father has been an impediment to female religious life seems to me most unlikely in light of the historical evidence to the contrary. Somehow for hundreds of years millions of Catholic women did not notice that it was a problem! Indeed, this historical evidence speaks very much to the interpretation that the Fatherhood of God has been a strong, positive component of Christianity for women (in part, for the psychological reasons given above).

Another relevant issue is that many radical feminists are lesbians, and thus it is important to discuss what can be called "lesbian psychology." I will refer here to the important work of the Christian psychologist Elizabeth Moberly (1983, 1985) who has written extensively on the psychology of lesbians. Moberly's basic point is that lesbians represent that small proportion of women who never developed a strong feminine identity. This identity failed because of a disruption in the early mother-daughter bonding. Their insecure feminine gender identity is associated with a great deal of anger which may erupt unpredictably. Because of their painful, often destructive relationships with their mothers, they are usually very ambivalent about women (same sex ambivalence). For example, they may resent being treated as women by other women. However, they often seek other women who are positive mother figures, or they live out mother roles in their relationships with other women. Lesbian women also tend to be angry at men, especially if they have experienced indifferent or abusive men; they are very vulnerable to any criticism that they perceive as directed at women. For such women, God the Father commonly fails to meet their psychological needs.

But what is the Christian psychological response to this? To begin, you don't throw out what is good psychology for the great majority of normal women, in order to meet the needs of a very small number of lesbian feminists. Nevertheless, you still must try to find ways to support these women's needs: to help them. But how? Besides good psychotherapy, there is in the Orthodox and Catholic tradition an extraordinary mothering function which is sometimes met by the Blessed Virgin Mary, the "Mother of Mercy." In short, spiritual mothering is one way, often overlooked, that can promote the psychological and spiritual healing of women with painfully defective mothering.

Male archetypes, and the concept of father

Some surprising support for the model of male servant leadership comes from recent Jungian theorists describing male psychology. It is not that they are directly aware of their support, but nevertheless they provide it. Nor am I endorsing Jungian psychology. Instead let us assume that it has some basic validity-especially the Jungian notion of an archetype or inborn mental structure which develops in response to various cultural experiences and symbols that express the archetype's structure. Certain contemporary Jungians, such as Robert Bly (1990), and especially Robert Moore and Douglas Gillette (1990), and Patrick Arnold (1992) have proposed four primary archetypes as underlying male psychology. These are referred to as the archetype of the King, the Warrior, the Lover, and the Wiseman/ Magician.

By the King archetype, Moore and Gillette mean a basic primal energy in men, focused on ordering-creating Right Order through wise ruling. The King archetype is also concerned with providing fertility and blessing. The King must have children and he must bless his Kingdom's children. The King symbolizes the life force and balance; he is a mentor.

The Warrior archetype stands for male energy and aggressiveness, clear thinking in the presence of death, plus training to develop aggressiveness in a disciplined way. The Warrior shows loyalty to a transpersonal ideal -his God, or leader, or nation or another cause.

The Magician archetype is the knower and master of technology. He is usually an initiate-that is, part of a secret religious world. He is an archetype of awareness, insight, thoughtfulness and introspective reflection.

The Lover archetype stands for passion and love. The Lover is very aware of the physical world, of sensations, sensuality and feeling. The Lover's energies are close to those of the mystics. Artists and psychics represent common professions of the Lover.

As described, any of these archetypes can be distorted in a macho manner, or in a weak, wimp-like fashion. Moore and Gillette very clearly acknowledge that each of these basic male archetypes can be used for evil. They explicitly note that the King can be a tyrant or a weakling (macho or wimpo, if you will). They also admit that the Warrior can be corrupted into a sadist or masochist; the Magician can be a prideful manipulator or an envious weakling; the Lover can degenerate into an addicted, promiscuous Don Juan; or he can be impotent, depressed and uncommitted.

The problem with the Jungian understanding of male archetypes is that however much these theorists decry the serious, harmful distortions of these male archetypes, they offer no convincing method or model for avoiding the ways in which men have distorted these male tendencies to exploit or harm others-especially women.

What is interesting is that Jesus, who is our model of God the Father, is the perfect integration of these four archetypes within the framework of servant leadership. That Jesus was a King is acknowledged in the liturgical year at the last feast of the Christian year: Christ the King. Jesus is commonly referred to as our Lord. As a Warrior Jesus said that he had come to bring the sword; recall his attack on the money-changers in the Temple, his fierce criticisms of the Pharisees-all Warrior behaviors. Of course the primary battle that Jesus led was a spiritual battle. St. Paul frequently refers to our life as one of spiritual warfare, and so do many of the saints. As for Christ the Lover, much of his message is one of love. He showed kindness and concern for the suffering of others so strong that it is no wonder that one of the great spiritual classics is titled This Tremendous Lover and a famous Protestant hymn is "Jesus Lover of My Soul." He shows explicit love for children-implicitly all children. As for the archetype of Wiseman or Magician, Jesus was known as a rabbi or teacher who brought new teachings and spoke with authority, and was also a miracle-worker. In short, Jesus summarizes and integrates all these basic archetypes, most especially when he says "I and the Father are one." For a father is called to be all of these: to bring the archetypes together and live all of them. He is the lover of his wife and children, the fighter for God and his family, a servant king within the household, and a source of knowledge and wisdom about the world. So once again we see the model of God as servant leader speaking to the needs and highest aspirations of male psychology. We see Christian fatherhood as a genuine model for removing the strong tendency of men either to abuse others or to betray their masculine gifts through weakness and cowardice.

Female archetypes, and the concept of mother

As described earlier, what is sometimes called "The Men's Movement" has used Jung's psychology to develop an understanding of male archetypes. Here let me propose that there are analogous female archetypes which are very clearly exemplified in Christian and especially Catholic theology and history.

These parallel archetypes are: the Queen, the Wisewoman/Magician, the Defender, and the Lover. Some might find it surprising that women have archetypes so clearly analogous to those of men, but I believe they do, although they take somewhat different form.

Let's start with the Wisewoman/Magician and look at the great female saints. Many of them were famous in their time, and still are today, for extraordinary wisdom and prophetic gifts. Many of these saints were also miracle-workers. And all saints, male and female, are believed to have performed miracles after their death; that is, indeed, an important element of the canonization procedure. Two of the great female saints are honored as "Doctors of the Church": Catherine of Siena and Teresa of Avila.

But the female saints understood themselves to be pale exemplars of the extraordinary wisdom of the Blessed Virgin, honored in the Litany by such titles as "Seat of Wisdom," "Mother of Good Counsel," "Virgin Most Prudent" and "Mirror of Justice." In any case, the archetype of the Wisewoman is found abundantly and is honored in the Catholic tradition.

As to the Defender (or Warrior), we need to reflect what is meant by this female power and struggle as distinct from those exercised and practiced by men. Women have historically been defenders of their children, their family, their people, rather than attackers. But they have fought mightily in these capacities. As most people know, don't ever mess with a bear cub! Your might run into a Momma.

Let's look again at the saints and the Virgin. Perhaps the best known female saintly warrior is Joan of Arc, who took up the sword to defend her people against foreign oppression. Another French saint is Genevieve, Patroness of Paris, who is said to have defended Paris when it was besieged by the pagan Franks under Childeric in the fifth century; Genevieve made a personal sortie with an armed band to obtain provisions for the Parisians. Later she won Childeric's respect, as well as that of Clovis. She is also credited with having kept Attila the Hun from attacking the city, through prayer and fasting.

But again Our Lady is the very prototype of the archetype. The Battle of Lepanto, a major turning point in the defense of Europe against Islam-against the Ottoman Turks-in 1571, was put under the protection of Our Lady; the memory of that victory is still celebrated in part by honoring her. One of Mary's titles is "Our Lady of Victory" which commemorates military victories achieved in various places under her patronage. But in her litany she has other similar titles, which emphasize both her power and her strong defense of her devotees: "Virgin Most Powerful," "Tower of David" and "Tower of Ivory." Catholic tradition affirms that Jesus refuses his mother nothing.

As for the Queen, Mary has from early centuries been understood as the Queen of Heaven. Her litany confirms her queenly nature many times. Let us recall those magnificent titles that we all know: "Queen of angels, Queen of patriarchs, Queen of prophets, Queen of apostles, Queen of martyrs, Queen of confessors, Queen of virgins, Queen of saints, Queen conceived without original sin, Queen assumed into heaven, Queen of the most holy Rosary, Queen of peace."

The Lover is left. This is an easy one; this archetype fits women extraordinarily well. We all know about women's capacity for love and devotion to others. We know the great number of Christian women whose love of God and of other people has deeply impressed the entire world. Love often takes different forms in men and women, but the basic archetype is the same. The last two archetypes of Lover and Queen are very powerfully summarized in the fifth Glorious Mystery-the Coronation. Here in heaven Mary is met in love by the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and crowned. And Mary is the only human so honored; and she is the model of the soul's journey for all Christians-women and men.

Finally, these four great archetypes are, I believe, best summarized and integrated in the term and role of "Mother"-just as "Father" had the same function for men. A Mother is archetypally wise, queenly, fighter for her family, lover of husband and children.

To conclude, let me emphasize again the Christian model of manhood and womanhood as complementary. After decades of tension and paralyzing conflict over the roles of men and women in the Church, isn't it time to turn to a positive model that honors the sexes as different but as cooperative? Isn't it time for both sexes to honor the special gifts of the other? Isn't it time for the Church-of all places-to be open to such a recognition-the kind of recognition that makes a wedding feast such a glorious symbol of men and women having a wonderful time in a mutually complementary celebration.n

References

Arnold, P.M. (1992). Wildmen, Warriors and Kings: Masculine Spirituality and the Bible. New York: Crossroad.

Blankenhorn, D. (1995). Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem. NY: Basic Books.

Bly, R. (1990). Iron John. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Chodorow, N.J. (1990). Gender, Relation and Difference in Psychoanalytic Perspective. In C. Zenardi (Ed.) Essential Papers on the Psychology of Women. New York: New York University Press, 420-436.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gray, J. (1992). Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus. New York: Harper Collins.

Moberly, E.R. (1983). Psychogenesis: The Early Development of Gender Identity. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Moberly, E.R. (1985). The Psychology of Self and Other. London: Tavistock Publications.

Moir, A. and Jessel, D. (1991). Brain Sex: The Real Difference Between Men and Women. New York: Laurel (Dell).

Moore, R. and Gillette, D. (1990). King, Warrior, Magician, Lover: Rediscovering the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine. San Francisco: Harper.

Tannen, D. (1990). You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: William Morrow.

[b]Just found this apropo to the thread, and very interesting, myself.

i enjoyed reading it Sky, thank you... i'll read it again and agree that it fits the thread...

very informational and a great piece of work.

Here is another, also fitting and interesting I think?

The Nuts and Bolts of Jungian Psychology and Spirituality
by William Walker, D.Min.

The following text is an introduction and overview to a seminar presented by the Samaritan Counseling and Spiritual Direction Program in Memphis,Tennessee, in October 2001.

One of the things that I have noticed over the past few years is that more and more spiritual directors and spiritual persons are turning to Jungian psychology to help fill out their doctrine of humanity. The Christian religion has always been an apologetic religion, in that it assumes a primary spiritual experience at its core, but uses the philosophy and the psychology of the times in which to clothe that experience so that one can make sense out of it and come to terms with what is demanded of the person in light of the experience. In the early days of Christianity, the Church used Greek and Roman thought to help amplify and illustrate the essential experience of faith. What was clear then and now is that the focus was on the experience of grace and faith, and not in the amplification or philosophical language used to help people understand their experience. Experience was primary and understanding was secondary.

So what are the clothes by which we understand this primary experience today? More and more people are turning to the mythic structure and language of depth psychology for understanding the essential core experience of life. However, one big problem then and now is that a great many people put their faith in the philosophical or psychological understanding, and not in the essential experience behind or underneath the explanations about faith and the experience that brought about the state of faith from the state of un-faith. Faith is not the state of believing but the state of trusting in the source that makes faith possible. Hence, for the spiritual person, one's faith is not in the theological notions, rather faith is in the God who acts in reconciling the world to Himself/Herself and thus overcoming estrangement. Thus, while Jungian psychology may help us, one ought not put his/her faith in a psychological frame of reference. Don't mistake the clothes for the essential experience and its opportunities and demands for a more whole form of living.

In examining the interest many spiritual people have in Jung and his psychology, I find it intriguing to ask about their attraction to Jung's ideas. My initial answer to this question is that Jung's model of the psyche is the most complete and comprehensive model of the human psyche we have in psychology. In my view, Jung worked very hard to come to terms with who we are as human beings and just how we relate to the world and each other. This also includes how we relate to the many parts of ourselves. Jung was very clear that ego consciousness is not the whole package. There is the world of the unconscious psyche, and to be fully human is to be in a dialogue with that unknown "other."

Secondly, I think many people may be drawn to Jung as a way to "piggyback" on his interest in the spirit and its role in the human psyche. In Modern Man in Search of a Soul, Jung clearly lays out that it is essentially through a spiritual experience that people find the true courage to overcome their anxiety, doubt, and estrangement. Thus, Jung's process of coming to terms with himself is a model that interests modern people as a way or paradigm that they might use for themselves.

My third impression about this interest in Jung and Jungian psychology is that in order for a person to be fully informed, we must have an integrated psychological understanding of what is happening to go along with our theological and philosophical understandings. Additionally, people may be attracted to Jung because he was an "Externalist." The task is not to spiritualize life away but to be fully present in the moment-- the core of the Existential movement in philosophy, theology and psychology. Existentialism includes the notion that "spiritualizing" is a psychological defense against the anxiety of not knowing, or a tendency to deal with the anxiety of not being whole. To be a true spiritual person is to come to terms with one's anxiety and not psychologically split or create illusions about reality. To be whole is to come to terms with what reality is (the whole of it) and our response to it. Jung had much to contribute to a model of God's presence in life capable of offsetting painful and limiting dualities. It is the unity of God and God's presence that will aid the spiritual development of people.

When we look at the Existential movement, from Kierkegaard, Sartre, Dostoyevsky, to Jung, what we find are two core motifs: the issue of human freedom and the issue of human responsibility. These were key issues for Jung as well. We also find in the Existential movement the motif of the modern person and community, of dividing oneself and creating an ideal about life, and then projecting that ideal into "another" realm. This is seen in the religious realm when people cannot fully come to terms with life and its hardships. They create an ideal and then project this better life into the future, or into a concept of an ideal " afterlife," and look forward to it. The Existential movement very much opposed this psychological splitting and/or its theological counterpart--a tendency to have a good mind and bad body and not to have the Kingdom of God at hand. Existentialism most wanted a person to be fully present in this moment, to be fully conscious in this moment, and to be fully responsible in this moment. One's essential courage to be comes from the individual's being fully informed and aware about the world and oneself. Being informed becomes the basis of our decision-making, for we know that we must somehow be responsible for how we are in the world and with ourselves.

In his 86 years, Jung produced more than 20 volumes of writings. In these he developed a "worldview," or psychological paradigm, to help him in his struggle to be truly himself as an individual in participation with the world. In understanding Jung, it is important to focus on what he meant by "individuation" and why he found dreams, visions and active imagination helpful in the process of overcoming our sense of estrangement and anxiety. His notion of individuation is, simply put, "the process" by which a person becomes fully one's true self. It is the process whereby consciousness does not identify with a part of the whole, and thus try to make the part into the whole. It is the process of developing consciousness and encountering the unconscious and being in a dialogue with it.

The most essential issue for Jung was coming to terms with the unconscious aspect of himself and others. There is the question of estrangement and how it comes about in the first place. How do we get reconciled with the true self once we are off course? Jung's essential notion is that the ego (one's consciousness) must be open to the various ways in which the unconscious presents itself. It is the manifestation of the unconscious mind that assists us in overcoming our one-sidedness and estrangement. According to Jung, the Self (big S, ie, the central core and totality of life, and not little s self) wants life fully developed and integrated. Dreams, visions, and religious experiences present those parts of ourselves (or reality) of which we are not conscious. It is in the process of receiving and integrating these contents of the unconscious "other" that we become more whole and truly individual persons.

As human beings, we cannot stand a meaningless life. If life is to have authentic meaning, we must become truly ourselves and not just be a part of the collective herd. We must find a way to manifest this new sense of self and its meaning in order to be fully alive. We must not only understand ourselves but also be willing to live from the new ethic found in this encounter between the conscious and unconscious. This is an ethic that includes one's social world but it is not based on the social ethic, as social ethics are relative. Social ethics have been transcended; we are provided an ethic rooted in "the Other" rather than the social orders. One can see rather quickly why Jung's thinking and model would appeal to the religious person. It implies a parallel in the Christian theological world, where a human being must come to terms with the presence of God and the demands that has on one's life. The key theological practical question is that of revelation. How does "The Transcendent Other" reveal itself in the historical world and the world of "this" individual? Jung tackles that question as best he can. He views dreams, visions, and spiritual experiences as a natural process of revelation.

Jung's map of the psyche includes the ego, persona, shadow, complex, anima/animus, Self, introversion, extroversion and the like. Jung saw problems in opposites (or the antinomies) and looked for a resolution of this duality into unity, writing, "The Self then functions as a union of opposites and thus constitutes the most immediate experience of the Divine which it is psychologically possible to imagine" (CW 11, par. 396). The Self is the slow, gradual realization of a divine cosmic center in the unconscious psyche of the individual. It is interesting to look at the nature of psychological projection and its purpose of bringing about reconciliation and wholeness, as well as Jung's method for becoming a unified whole. His method of becoming an individual and becoming whole off-sets the simple method of belief or identification with collective roles or values that bring authentic life.

We are confronted with a new ethic when we truly become our authentic selves as opposed to being adaptive selves (just part of a family system, a national system, or a system of social organization). To be fully human is to find a way to be an individual in participation with the various systems of social organizations in which we live. Essentially, however, the true core of ourselves comes from the experience of being our unique individual self and knowing that the core of this is transcendent of our ego-conscious orientation. It encounters us and demands that we become truly whole and find a way to manifest this in our daily lives in a loving way. In the last chapter of Jung's "so-called" autobiography" Memories, Dreams and Reflections, he sums up the issue of this mystery of life by saying, "In the final analysis we are all victims of cosmogonic love." It is our duty and destiny to find a way to become conscious of this love then manifest it in our individual and social lives. Jung held fast to the notion of love as in the Greek word eros, that power in the human psyche to overcome estrangement (be it emotional, physical, rational, or ethical) and to be an authentic creative and self-expressive person. To be such is to actualize the depth of human freedom and responsibility.

<blockquote>

... Jung's model of the psyche is the most complete and comprehensive model of the human psyche we have in psychology.

-- William Walker

Sky [quoting William Walker]: Jung's map of the psyche includes the ego, persona, shadow, complex, anima/animus, Self, introversion, extroversion and the like. Jung saw problems in opposites (or the antinomies) and looked for a resolution of this duality into unity, writing, "The Self then functions as a union of opposites and thus constitutes the most immediate experience of the Divine which it is psychologically possible to imagine" (CW 11, par. 396).

Much of Jung's work emphasized the need to bring the opposites into union by becoming conscious of them. What we are not conscious of we will project onto others. My earlier post touched on shadow projection, perhaps it would be timely to take a look at the anima/animus and projection.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>

Anima: The inner feminine side of a man. (See also animus, Eros, Logos and soul-image.)

The anima is both a personal complex and an archetypal image of woman in the male psyche. It is an unconscious factor incarnated anew in every male child, and is responsible for the mechanism of projection. Initially identified with the personal mother, the anima is later experienced not only in other women but as a pervasive influence in a man's life.

Jung distinguished four broad stages of the anima, analogous to levels of the Eros cult described in the late classical period. He personified them as Eve, Helen, Mary and Sophia.

In the first stage, Eve, the anima is indistinguishable from the personal mother. The man cannot function well without a close tie to a woman. In the second stage, personified in the historical figure of Helen of Troy, the anima is a collective and ideal sexual image ("All is dross that is not Helen"-Marlowe). The third stage, Mary, manifests in religious feelings and a capacity for lasting relationships. In the fourth stage, as Sophia (called Wisdom in the Bible), a man's anima functions as a guide to the inner life, mediating to consciousness the contents of the unconscious. She cooperates in the search for meaning and is the creative muse in an artist's life.

Ideally, a man's anima proceeds naturally through these stages as he grows older. In fact, as an archetypal life force, the anima manifests in whatever shape or form is necessary to compensate the dominant conscious attitude.

So long as the anima is unconscious, everything she stands for is projected. Most commonly, because of the initially close tie between the anima and the protective mother-imago, this projection falls on the partner, with predictable results.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Animus: The inner masculine side of a woman. (See also anima, Eros, Logos and soul-image.)

Like the anima in a man, the animus is both a personal complex and an archetypal image.

Jung described four stages of animus development in a woman. He first appears in dreams and fantasy as the embodiment of physical power, an athlete, muscle man or thug. In the second stage, the animus provides her with initiative and the capacity for planned action. He is behind a woman's desire for independence and a career of her own. In the next [third] stage, the animus is the "word," often personified in dreams as a professor or clergyman. In the fourth stage, the animus is the incarnation of spiritual meaning. On this highest level, like the anima as Sophia, the animus mediates between a woman's conscious mind and the unconscious. In mythology this aspect of the animus appears as Hermes, messenger of the gods; in dreams he is a helpful guide.

Any of these aspects of the animus can be projected onto a man. As with the projected anima, this can lead to unrealistic expectations and acrimony in relationships.

Source: The Jung Lexicon


</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

According to Jung, the shadow is always of the same gender as the individual and frequently contains that which we find repulsive or unacceptable. The anima/animus however is of the opposite gender. Most of us come face to face with our anima/animus through the act of romantic love and we're very familiar with this process. Essentially, we all have an image of the perfect mate within us. For example a man might value the attributes of attractiveness, nurturing, even physical qualities such as blonde hair. When he meets a woman who possesses enough of the same qualities as his inner anima, a projection is triggered. The male projects his inner anima upon the woman and the common characteristics that both she and the anima possess serve to hold the projection in place. The man is now in love, but we can't especially say that he's in love with the woman; he is in love with the image he has projected upon the woman. Inasmuch as the real flesh and blood woman shares the same characteristics of his anima, he can be said to be in love with the woman.

Plato has some similar insights... "Plato believed that in the beginning there was only one human who was composed of two halves. At some point in time that perfect human was split apart becoming separate individuals. Ever since that separation occurred humankind has been searching for their other half to make them whole. The desire and pursuit of this wholeness is called "Love".

Not infrequently, the real woman will fail to live up to the image and the man will fall "out of love". Alternatively, the man's anima may mature in such a fashion that the real woman can no longer "hold the projection". In hindsight, he may wonder what 'he ever saw in her'. What he saw was the incomplete aspects of his Self, made whole--at least temporarily--via his relationship with the woman. Naturally, women can go through a process that is nearly identical in scope.

I'm going to quote once more from William Walker: Jung saw problems in opposites (or the antinomies) and looked for a resolution of this duality into unity, writing, "The Self then functions as a union of opposites and thus constitutes the most immediate experience of the Divine which it is psychologically possible to imagine"

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>

"When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]."

Source: The Gospels of Thomas


</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

That which is Everything contains both the entirety of the opposites and yet, is beyond duality. Stripped of all projection, "God" does not have a gender. That doesn't prevent us from defining our relationship with "God" in human terms however. To many people, "God" is experienced within the dynamic of a parent/child relationship. Still others experience God as Lover and describe that union with tender, erotic undertones.

<center>[b]Stanzas Of The Soul

1. One dark night,
fired with love's urgent longings
- ah, the sheer grace! -
I went out unseen,
my house being now all stilled.

2. In darkness, and secure,
by the secret ladder, disguised,
- ah, the sheer grace! -
in darkness and concealment,
my house being now all stilled.

3. On that glad night,
in secret, for no one saw me,
nor did I look at anything,
with no other light or guide
than the one that burned in my heart.

4. This guided me
more surely than the light of noon
to where he was awaiting me
- him I knew so well -
there in a place where no one appeared.

5. O guiding night!
O night more lovely than the dawn!
O night that has united
the Lover with his beloved,
transforming the beloved in her Lover.

6. Upon my flowering breast
which I kept wholly for him alone,
there he lay sleeping,
and I caressing him
there in a breeze from the fanning cedars.

7. When the breeze blew from the turret,
as I parted his hair,
it wounded my neck
with its gentle hand,
suspending all my senses.

8. I abandoned and forgot myself,
laying my face on my Beloved;
all things ceased; I went out from myself,
leaving my cares
forgotten among the lilies.

St. John of the Cross ~ Dark Night of the Soul</center>

Music of the Hour [youtube video]:

(One of the most beautiful songs I've ever heard.)

See also: [*] Song of Songs[*] A Commentary on the Rosarium Philosophorum[*] The Heiros Gamos

Thanks for the article Sky...
Not very chatty today but thought I'd highlight the following because they spoke to me, of me the most.... in the context of the whole of these discussions.... I was drawn in by the author's reflection of the simplicity of Jung's message and my selected quotes express that best....

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Thus, while Jungian psychology may help us, one ought not put his/her faith in a psychological frame of reference. Don't mistake the clothes for the essential experience and its opportunities and demands for a more whole form of living.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Jung was very clear that ego consciousness is not the whole package. There is the world of the unconscious psyche, and to be fully human is to be in a dialogue with that unknown "other."

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
it is essentially through a spiritual experience that people find the true courage to overcome their anxiety, doubt, and estrangement.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
To be whole is to come to terms with what reality is (the whole of it) and our response to it.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
"In the final analysis we are all victims of cosmogonic love." It is our duty and destiny to find a way to become conscious of this love then manifest it in our individual and social lives.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

I joined this discussion with little or no knowledge of Jung and no experience with anyone who practices Jungian psychology so its all very new and interesting for me.

I think I'm always looking to find the foundations common to my own beliefs as a means of validating and enlightening my path with new understandings. As a way of giving myself permission to enquire and explore and experience. To value experience not above all else but as part of the whole circle of life. As evidence of the experience of life. As purpose for the existance. The meaning of life... Gee... guess I'm still searching for clarity on that. lol. The mysteries yet to be revealed some times leave my brain spinning with curiosity. I allow the mystery to be revealed in its perfect time as the gateway to whatever comes next.

I do find it interesting..... any discussion that centres around the human sciences... psychology, philosophy, even sociology and other disciplines.... so much research, so much theorizing, so much testing and examining and supposing and hypothosising..... always to validate what is known in the hearts of all man, woman and child.

It's love the research all find humanity to crave. It's love that heals, its love that binds, its love that we leave behind in the hearts of others. By the Word we know God's love.

Sometimes when I finish reading commentary like this that engages me and gives me cause to think, I find myself boggled with the information. Overwhelmed by the process of concentrating and absorbing. I usually read it more than once. Words full of meaning. Words behind the words.... words that lead your thoughts in different directions (I should know given how wordy my fluff can be...lol)

I usually follow the intellectual workout with a quiet time to allow my spirit to process the information from my head to my heart. I invite spiritual descernment. Its then that I hear the message from the words. Its there I find their meaning and truth. Through the expressed thoughts of others I consider their meaning in the context of the Living Word of God. The Word that dwells in my heart and centres me in my place in the Circle of Life. Connecting with new thoughts gives me cause to pause. Pause to hear a spirit-filled perspective. The essence of the message.

Gives me further cause to consider how overloaded our world has become with information, ideas, symbols, rituals, ceremonies with the same intention..... To understand and fullfill the meaning of our lives.

'Seek and you will find. Seek first the kingdom of God and all will be given to you.'

I guess I'm just in a very simplified frame of mind right now. Been hitting the Bible pretty hard today.... lol. My head is in a cloud. My cup runneth over.

lol... so much for not being chatty....

Will catch up with topic next time..... quickly scanned Sky's and spiritual_emergency's posts and will consider them more carefully another day.

Just a quick reaction to one thing.... the gender question.... in my teachings and study I've come to believe its an issue of respect. Acknowledging diety as diety and human as human. Relating God to one gender or another is one of those things I tend to think of as 'humanizing diety' and not a good thing. It narrows my concept of God. I avoid as much as possible... though it is a challenge in written communications especially to avoid the gender references when referring to God but I do try to avoid gender references in my verbal language.

I'm not especially comfortable with using a 'name' to describe God. Perhaps its the strong Judeo influences in my teachings. Perhaps it the religious baggage that is attached to native people and the sufferings at religious residential schools. I've had to wrestle with that one alot when examining my acceptance of Christian doctrine as a person of native ancestry. Denying one to embrace another. Honouring my traditions while being a follower of Christ's teachings. Took me a long time to sort it all out for myself. To find Jesus in my traditions.

But again.... I digress as usually..... lol

this is what i'd call a good discussion... thanks to everyone for the contributions... reading and processing...

the pages regarding Gods' gender are useful for me because i'd heard it stated that God had to be identigied as male in the Christian faith for a rational reason... i think the first article you posted Sky is speaking to that issue.. i'll read again before more commentary...

i'm appreciative of the Jungian and archetype contributions.. likewise, i will read and review more before comment...

thank you spiritual_emergency... chocolatelover is correct... i'm getting my plate and utinsils ready for the feast... (with plenty of napkins and wetnaps
)

chocolatelover, as always i feel your connection and can sit by and coast in those good feelings with you...

thanks everyone... more later...

Spiritual Emergency, it seems to me that Jungian theory has an open door to "pathway" choice? Would you agree and what are your thoughts? (or anyone who cares to answer)

<blockquote>
NW: Spiritual Emergency, it seems to me that Jungian theory has an open door to "pathway" choice.

To a certain extent, Jungian therapy itself could be seen as a form of path. Theoretically, assuming one had the time, money and the option, an individual could enter into a relationship with a Jungian therapist that might be comparable to that of a student and a guru. Jungian therapy is not meant to be a "quick fix" like many forms of therapy these days so it would be understood that you might spend many years with that one therapist. Quite honestly, I don't know who could afford to do so with the possible exception of the rich and famous. I also have what I think is a healthy sense of caution in regard to teacher/guru relationship dynamics. Although there are times one is very wounded and needs to lean on others I think, ideally, a mature relationship is peer based and goes both ways: "In teaching you shall learn, in learning you shall teach." But maybe that's just me.

Nonetheless, the "Jungian Path", a process Jung referred to as The Individuation Process is a path that intersects with that of many others, precisely because it is rooted in archetypal theory which encompasses so many different cultures and approaches. Jung was of the opinion that this process of Individuation belongs to the second half of life.

thank you s_e ... i'm gleaning a lot here.. i've had "guru" relationships with a variety of individuals... the transcendental movement has "matrixed" into common society... some i took every word as a truth to decipher, and others, "grain of salt" theory was essential...

i may have more questions before i'm ready to make an in depth comment...

Do you see a decided difference in the Jungian approach and some popular spiritualities, in that Jungian originates from a place of transcendence vs. salvation?

if you could, can you describe these two terms relationship to each other and the affect of same on an individual during his/her spiritual journey? (i.e. the different modalities an individual takes considering these appear to be two separate destinations..)

it would be great if i could get a full round of answers on this one... Sky, chococlate, s_e, anyone? interested in all opinions...

thank you...

This material is readily available on the internet. What aspect of immanence are you struggling with? This sounds like you have a master paper due by the end of April for your terms. Please elaborate as to what I have posted here and in my threads that you don't understand regarding MY trancendent God being immanent.

My God is omnipotent, omniscent, omnipresent. He is immutable in both His love and laws. I am not a pantheist, but do know that God has given each part of the creation an energy/spirit. (Scripture tells me this.) It is not "Him" in each thing, but it's own that responds to the Creator. The very idea of trying to decipher God with man's cognitive (in)ability is almost laughable. Do you expect to receive anything more than a priori statements regarding the workings of a transcendent God in a salvation experience?

We cannot know the whole mind of God, for that in itself would lower Him to our status. What we know is what He has allowed us to find out, through prayer and reading and experiencing through the third aspect of the trinity. God is transcendent. He came to bring us salvation, and remains today in the form of the Holy Spirit, indwelling the believer. You appear to be seeking a posteriori for an a priori experience.
However, the reasons for all the Scripture regarding the signs, is because the Jewish people also required signs. They were the original "show me" state. The book of Matthew was written just for this reason: to show the Jewish people that this, indeed was the Messiah that came. This was the original intent of the miracles He did.
Your evidence is written in the stars. Not as astrology for future telling, but that God has used them to prove so much, if you would only look. This is the reason Scripture tells us that they saw the signs and knew, but refused Him anyway. That all "knew" who He was at the time.
One shining example is the Star of Bethlehem. Please tell me what your sense of evidence is once you have at least read that text.www.starofbethlehem.net

So you see, I personally believe that He is involved in the world today, though He remains immutable in allowing us our free will. Soon return to put it back to it's original, beautiful self it was, with sinless creations. A transcendent God that provides immanence for us.

well, since i'm beginning to hear terms i'm not familiar with i'm beginning to feel like i'm making progress..

pretty sure i understand what you're saying Sky, and thanks for the response...

i'm searching for clarity... are you describing the Christian God as transcending? to me that says God transcends even Its Own Self? cool ...

you've described God as transcendant but didnt mention humans?

if we are in His image, it would apply that we transcend and as i'm learning, receive salvation through transcendence? or vise versa, is it in the order of transcendence through salvation?

it seems to me that one approach is passive, the other assertive... do you see what i mean?

thank you..

It is my belief that we need salvation first. Then, as we follow the path, we can also transcend. I believe that we are the literal spirit children of God. That He is called Father because He is our Father (which also requires that we have a Mother, doesn't it? maybe She is too sacred to be commonly discussed?). As children of God, we are gods and goddesses in embryo. We have much more potential than we can see in this state, because we are so undeveloped. We have far to go to reach the ultimate possible ends of our journeys. But, ultimately, it is not unreachable.

<blockquote>
NW: Do you see a decided difference in the Jungian approach and some popular spiritualities, in that Jungian originates from a place of transcendence vs. salvation? ... it seems to me that one approach is passive, the other assertive... do you see what i mean?

Yes, I can see your point. I'm not sure where to apply a value to either approach because I think that a person has to be authentic to where they are.

In terms of personal authenticity, I come at this from perhaps a different angle than many others. There was a time when I had many beliefs, I had trust, I had faith. Those all got pulverized, so that now, in this process of putting myself back together I'm being a lot more discerning about what I'm willing to adopt as a belief, or where to place my faith and trust. In other words, I'm not certain I can answer your questions because I still haven't answered all of mine.

However, I do believe that there is divine intelligence interwoven into the fabric of the universe (and thus, humanity) that is known by many names. At the very center of this intelligence there appears to be Nothing; Silence; Stillness; Emptiness; Formlessness, but out of this center emanates All. Let me pull in the words of some others to try and explain...

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>

Beyond this experience, all light disappears, all awareness ceases. There is no perception of anything; there is simply no experience. When the soul is completely concentrated on the absolute there is nothing to perceive, for to perceive total darkness is not to perceive. Light is the awareness that arises out of this total darkness, revealing that the absolute is prior to light, awareness, and consciousness. This experience of cessation is the experience of complete ego death, for it is going beyond the world of manifestation, beyond even awareness of the world of manifestation. There is no awareness of self or soul, for there is no awareness at all, without this being unconsciousness or sleep. When awareness looks out again, which we experience as the return of awareness, the manifest universe reappears. With the return of awareness the logos appears as the displaying of time and space, and all the phenomena of the universe. We are here the absolute, the luminous night, witnessing appearance arising within it, out of it, but we still experience ourselves as the immense stillness and stupendous silence underlying all existence and all appearance.

Source: Ego Death


</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

I think some forms of spirituality identify with this center of Stillness and say, Everything is Nothing. I think other forms of spirituality identify with that which emanates from this center and see only the Everything; they find it offensive to equate Everything that Is, with Nothing at All.

Meanwhile, here we are, with our little human minds and our little human egos trying to make sense of it all. These two places of Being can seem so disparate. How can we live our lives on this plane of existence as if Everything is Nothing? How can we bring this knowledge down into the body as lived experience?

Allow me to drag in some more words...

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>

There are a lot of books out on the concept of the soul. Do you have a definition?

Well, for me, the soul is the divine part of us that is embodied in this physical form for a few years. Eventually it is released, but I see soul as the embodied part. I see spirit as the energy, the disembodied energy that can come in to union with the soul in the body. For example, a great dancer like Nureyev can prepare his instrument. His muscles can be in perfect shape through his attention and his concentration. So, his consciousness, his light in his body--which for me would be soul--can be a perfect instrument. But, he's a great dancer when spirit is in union with that instrument. The leap is in the union of soul and spirit.

<center>It's in that surrender to
the transcendent...
that art is created.</center>

I think of the soul as feminine, because it's the receiver--in both men and women. The artist, for example, has to have a receiver and just hopes to God that the spirit will come and touch into soul so that there will a poem come out of that union or a piece of music or art. It's in that surrender to the transcendent, or however you want to call the spirit energy, that art is created.

Source: Empowering Soul Through the Feminine


</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

I think that ultimately, surrender--what might be considered passivity--will always have a role to play because you are encountering a force that is much greater than "you". Transcendence is found in the surrender. Does surrender+transcendence=salvation? That, I don't know.


Music of the Hour:

Instinctively.... I feel as though salvation is the act of surrendering one's will over to a higher power. Transending is the act of submit to the will of God and opening the lines of communication. Being one with God. Transcendant in spirit and in flesh as fruit of renewal and salvation.

God is a transcendant God because as flesh he suffered and as spirit he rose to return to the heavens where we all eventually gather.

thanks for the help everyone...

s_e i get what you're saying... meditations on nothing... a zen? meditation... imagine nothing... the John Lennon song "Imagine there's no heaven..." ... (umderstood the Beatles spent time with a well known Guru...

not a Bible expert, but in the beginning, there was nothing...

the argument for nothingness superdominates all thinking of mankind.. the nothingness and the unknown combined defeat all of mans' puny thoughts...

how could i give God a gender? still unanswered for me...

Rapunzel said salvation first, then transcendence... i'm going with that one for now...

hovering around these thoughts still, i'm known to edit my posts for up to 45 minutes after i post them... bad habit..

guess i'll wait to see what you all have to say and let it bounce or whatever...

i've learned a lot here... there's no way i can put an ending on the story yet...

so.... bye for now...

Salvation

In theology, salvation can mean three related things:

* being saved from something, such as suffering or the punishment of sin - also called deliverance;
* being saved for something, such as an afterlife or participating in the Reign of God - also called redemption
* social liberation and healing, as in liberation theology.

The theological study of salvation is called Soteriology and also covers the means by which salvation is effected or achieved, and its results or effects.

link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation

Transcendence (religion)

In religion, transcendence is a condition or state of being that surpasses physical existence, and in one form is also independent of it. It is affirmed in the concept of the divine in the major religious traditions, and contrasts with the notion of God, or the Absolute existing exclusively in the physical order (immanentism), or indistinguishable from it (pantheism). Transcendence can be attributed to the divine not only in its being, but also in its knowability. Thus, God transcends the universe, but also transcends knowledge (is beyond the grasp of the human mind). Although transcendence is defined as the opposite of immanence, the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Some theologians and metaphysicians of the great religious traditions affirm that God, or Brahman, is both within and beyond the universe (panentheism); in it, but not of it; simultaneously pervading it and surpassing it.

link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transce...%28religion%29

Salvation appears to speak to Earthly concerns by this defintion… saved from suffering (on Earth) … saved for an afterlife (after this Earth) … social liberation … on Earth…

Transcendence surpasses physical existence…. Independent of the physical ….

(immanent = physical God) (pantheism=abstract God) …. Transcendence is affirmed in

the Divine …. By being, by knowing .. God is beyond the grasp of the human mind…

transcendent God (beyond the grasp of human mind) and immanent God (physical God) are opposites but not exclusive … (of course not) … panentheism =

immanent+transcendant God…

how am I doing? In my search for healing, I found it necessary to rise above my pains… the anecdotes of drowning, darkness, heaviness, falling, etc all describe a place, a position of being under neath….

God is High…. So I began to reach higher in my thoughts and hopes and dreams… even though I was so low, I looked for things, signs, feelings above where I felt I was…

the familiar “Look up” statement meant more than it used to… “High” had a new meaning for me… “Up” became a simple symbol for me.. I’d draw an arrow on the drawing pointing up…

I began to look at things from numerous angles… back/forward/left/front/top/bottm….

The more angles I looked at a problem or thing from, the more I discovered about it..

Childsplay… the boy in the playground who picks up a rock to examine it, slowly turning it in his hands to see everything….

Somewhere along the way I lost that instinct… did I become industrialized?

This has been my personal war to be human…..

if you've taken time to read all this, thank you very much...

<blockquote>
Re: Salvation & Transcendence

That was interesting. I'd never explicitly tracked down those terms before. That's the way I like to do things too--drag in some rationality and then sit with it, sometimes for a very long time.

Meanwhile, it's probably apparent that for those who are using Jungian applications as a framework of interpretation, an awful lot can get pulled into that space. Those who have found something that resonates for them here may also enjoy the work of the transpersonalists. I recommend Stan Grof in particular, although there are many authors to choose from.

You might also enjoy the following websites/articles, both are strongly Jungian oriented:

[*] Anne Baring's Website
[*] Marion Woodman

Naturally, you're welcome to wander through either of my blogs as the spirit moves you. There's enough links there that you could be stuck reading for years but a more "condensed" version can be found here should that be your preference. Coralproper, given your posts in the schizophrenia/psychosis topic, you might find some info of interest to you there.

I'm not certain if my life will allow much in the way of participation in this conversation over the next few weeks, but maybe it's just as well to allow time for digestion -- it does go deep.

Thanks, everyone, for the opportunity to share some of my favorite links and "talk Jungian". I enjoyed it.


Music of the Hour:

I've not much to comment on the word analysis but I did feel the impact of your searching higher. I could almost feel the energy build with that single switch of consciousness.

And the enquiring mind that wants to know more.... floods itself with compelling thoughts.... driven on a mission, an exploration...an experience..... can be overloaded with restless impatience. Drawn again to acknowledge the harmony.

Sky said:

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Please elaborate as to what I have posted here and in my threads that you don't understand regarding MY trancendent God being immanent .... The very idea of trying to decipher God with man's cognitive (in)ability is almost laughable.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

i certainly hope that God doesnt think my search for healing is laughable... (personally, i dont find the quote very transcending)(perhaps it fits "condescending")

Panentheism

Panentheism (from Greek ??? (pân) "all"; ?? (en) "in"; and ???? (Theós) "God"; "all-in-God") A panentheistic belief system is one which posits that the one God interpenetrates every part of nature, and timelessly extends beyond as well. Panentheism is distinguished from pantheism, which holds that God is synonymous with the material universe.[1]

In panentheism, God is viewed as creator and/or animating force behind the universe, and the source of universal truth. This concept of God is closely associated with the Logos as stated in the 5th century BCE works of Heraclitus (ca. 535–475 BC), in which the Logos pervades the cosmos and whereby all thoughts and things originate; e.g., "He who hears not me but the Logos will say: All is one." A similar thought espoused by Jesus and interpreted by Unity as being synonmous: "The Father and I are one." (John 10:30)

Panentheism is essentially a unifying combination of theism (God is the supreme being) and pantheism (God is everything). While pantheism says that God and the universe are coextensive, panentheism claims that God is greater than the universe and that the universe is contained within God. Panentheism holds that God is the “supreme affect and effect” of the universe.

link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

one thing missing in this thread is my expression of gratitude..

spiritual_emergency: busy lives do call away... walk in Peace... praying that we all find what we're looking for..

chocolatelover: i have rested in your beauty many times...

Sky: its been interesting to say the least...

KathyM: your contributions are valued.. i hope you'll reappear and give some feedback...

Jinny, coral, freewill, Perna, Rapunzel, GardnerGirl, 1oxbowgirl, SeptMorn, Doc John, and any i've left out (sorry) ... you all matter...

thank you everyone...

how could i? (((muffy))) you're in here too... thank you...

NW

I've been too busy eating my popcorn and enjoying the show, lol. It's a very interesting conversation, and I'm impressed with the contributions so far. On a personal level, it gives me a thrill to see people of various faiths/backgrounds given the freedom to express their views while remaining respectful towards each other.

i agree with that statement KathyM... i'm grateful for the open-mindedness i've encountered here...

where i live, a conversation like this would be considered interesting, but common.. i would take this conversation to my old smalltown USA and recieve some agreement, a good number of raised eyebrows, argument, maybe even a fight...

but ive been in places that are small and open-minded and much of what ive learned came from such places... just microdots on the map...

Spirituality is a subject many, if not all of us have at one time or another considered, isnt it?

may i ask what part of the discussion youve found interesting? for me, the Ancient Line of Sacred Sites has always held facsination..

thanks for listening KathyM.. (((KathyM)))