God, Archtypes, and Jungian Psychology

hi All.. hope no one is offended if i post a (rather long) article in reference to God, the Archetypes, and Carl Jung..

while not an exact fit, this article provides some insight iinto my personal belief system.. after reading it, maybe i am a Jungian? i have worked with mandalas and archtypes in my process..

the article doesnt quite capture my observations in relation to archtypes, so here are my personal thoughts about that subject..

Archetpyes are those characters often found in stories and books, movies, media of any form, including music...

some of the better known archtypes include "the wanderer, the magician, the hero, the anti-hero, the villain, the damsel in distress, the prankster, the doubter, the innocent, and God...

Jung and others believe that archetypes are major influences on our behavior, consciously and sub-consciously... how many of us have read a novel or watched a movie and desired to be just like the hero, the anti-hero... i believe these wishes influence us more than we realize..

God as an Archetype is something i am very interested in... of course, God is more than a character in a story, yet, it is through the stories that most of us make the connections to that which lives outside ourselves..

firther, it is my belief that through the study of the Archetypical God, that a personal connection to the higher powers that be can be attempted by the educated and simple alike..

speaking directly to the subject of God, the archtype has existed for millenia, as early as the oldest known cave paintings, and probably earlier than that still...

stories are passed through generations, before written languages, by word of mouth... the archtypes build character through the existence of time and are more embellished, more defined...

it is my intent to show that the story of God is a living and growing concept, and will continue to be so for all future time imagined...

the purpose of posting this article is to share some thoughts in relation to the idea of God, archetypes, and psychology...

Jungian Psychology and the New God Image
Pamela J. Brown
Community Unitarian Universalist Church
Daytona Beach, Florida
June 04, 2000
Today I want to talk to you about a European shaman who for an increasing number of people might be viewed as "he who brought the sunset to the earth". I speak of Carl Gustav Jung, M.D., a Swiss psychiatrist who was born in 1875 and died in 1961. The son of a clergyman, Jung grew up in the Swiss Reformed Church of his father. He accepted its Christian symbolism and dogma with respect, even though he saw no inspiration in his father and even though he had different religious symbols in his dreams. Like the shaman boy in the children's story, Jung was both introverted and intuitive. He was given to dreams and visions which he experienced as profoundly real. Jung's imaginal experiences impacted him dramatically, but as a youth he had no context for understanding them. The dreams and visions from Jung's early and middle childhood would shape the course of his life. They ultimately led to the gift of Jungian psychology for the people of the world.

As a child, though, Jung clung to Christianity. Thus, young Carl was devastated when he experienced a lack of religious encounter at his first communion. Of this event Jung wrote late in his long and prolific life, "...I was empty and did not know what I was feeling. Only gradually, in the course of the following days, did it dawn on me that nothing had happened. I had reached the pinnacle of religious initiation, had expected something to happen, and nothing at all had happened. I knew that God could do stupendous things to me, things of fire and unearthly light, but this ceremony contained no trace of God, not for me at any rate." (MDR).

Jung was unable to relate to the structures in Christian ritual and dogma after this experience, and until university, at least, he was painfully isolated from others in the matters that were most important to him. These were his ongoing mystical experiences of what he would later call the autonomous or objective psyche. Jung was influenced by Kant, Freud, his patients at the Burgholzli mental hospital in Zurich and others in such a way that he came to view the objective psyche as the source of religious experience. He understood the symbols in the myths and religions of the world to be projections from this source.

Jungian psychology postulates that dreams and visions, and fairy tales, myths and rituals come from a place deep inside of us all -- a level of the psyche or being that connects us as well. Jung named this realm the collective unconscious. He observed universal patterns in the collective unconscious which he called archetypes. Archetypes produce images and experiences of meaning. The young artist's vision in the children's story can be seen as arising from the archetypes of the Great Father and the Great Mother, two of many archetypes Jung identified. Now, Dr. Jung observed a central and unifying archetype in the collective unconscious. This he called the Self with a capital S. The Self is the God Archetype and the images and experiences to which it gives birth are the meaning-laden God-images of humanity: Temples, cathedrals, mandalas, castles, cities, magical fish, birds and land animals and forests and trees are among the Self symbols that appear in dreams. A symbol such as these will be a true expression of the archetype if it engenders a sense of awe in the dreamer upon dream recall.

When Jung said of his lack of religious experience at his first communion, "I knew God could do stupendous things to me, things of fire and unearthly light," he was speaking of this archetype.

Light is one of the manifestations of the activated Self archetype in dreams and waking dreams or visions: So is a disembodied voice that speaks with a spiritual authority. Some Jungians have speculated that Paul's blinding vision of unearthly light on the Road to Damascus was an activation of the Self archetype. They have speculated that the Self archetype is the same thing as the Inner Christ, and that Paul was experiencing the ability to engage the numinous reality of the New God-image two thousand years before it would emerge as a conscious possibility for everyone. The new God-image, by the way, refers to the psychological level which understands religious symbolism as the vocabulary of images of the objective psyche.

Jung recognized that the God archetype had the potential to overwhelm an individual if it was experienced directly. An interesting story that illustrates the danger comes from the Eastern Orthodox tradition: During the funeral procession of the Virgin Mary someone touched the bier and was either injured or died just like in the Old Testament when somebody touched the Ark of the Covenant when it was being carried in a procession. The theological connection is the understanding that Mary is the ark of the New Covenant. In Eastern Orthodoxy she is called the Theotokos, which means God-bearer in Greek. From a Jungian perspective religious symbols such as these reveal the awesome power of the central archetype and the need for protection from direct encounter for most people. Religious symbols can be seen as step-down transformers that contain and control the power of the raw archetype. Jung believed the next two thousand years would be a time of increasing awareness in the individual of the God center as it lives within each of us. He also felt we were developing a capacity to relate to it directly without being obliterated.

Jung knew his ideas challenged the clergy and theologians of his day. Thus he wrote, "I am not addressing myself to the happy possessors of faith, but to those many people for whom the light has gone out, the mystery has faded, and God is dead. For most of them there is no going back, and one does not know either whether going back is the better way. To gain an understanding of religious matters, probably all that is left us today is the psychological approach. That is why I take these thought-forms that have become historically fixed, try to melt them down again and pour them into molds of immediate experience." (Answer to Job).

What about dreams? They provide access to immediate religious experience over time. They are deeply meaningful. Many of us don't remember our dreams. B complex vitamins, sleeping on our right sides, and a desire to recall our dreams will help us to remember them. A pad by the bed before we retire for the night will show the unconscious that the desire to relate to it is there. Dreams will come, and if the dreamer writes them down and works with them over time, he or she will begin to see the archetypes. Eventually at times one will dream dreams of a people, archetypal dreams, not just dreams of one's own personal life.

Here is the archetypal dream of a Jungian analyst who dedicated himself to the path of individuation, to the unconscious conscious through dream work:

A temple of vast dimensions was in the process of being built. As far as I could see: ahead, behind, right and left -- there were incredible numbers of people building on gigantic pillars. I, too, was building on a pillar. The whole building process was in its very beginning, but the foundation was already there, the rest of the building was starting to go up, and I and many others were working on it.

Jung was told this dream and his remark was, "Yes, you know, that is the temple we all build on. We don't know the people because, believe me, they build in India and China and in Russia and all over the world. That is the new religion." (Edinger, The New God Image, 1996)

I have spoken of the new God-image without speaking of the old. Briefly, there are six stages in the transformation of the God-image in the western psyche and they all mark advances in consciousness. The six stages are 1) animism 2) matriarchy, 3) hierarchical polytheism, 4) tribal monotheism, 5) universal monotheism and 6) individuation or the discovery of the psyche. All six stages exist as levels in the unconscious. In very conscious people like Jung it is possible for all stages to be activated at times. The six stages can be uncovered in a Jungian dream analysis, with the most recent developments in the God-image being experienced first and the original level, being experienced further down the road. During his retreats in his old age Jung would talk to his pots and pans. He experienced them as embodied with spirit. These levels can also be seen in schizophrenia, but HERE there is no strong and mature ego to relate to the power of the activated autonomous psyche.

One of the wonderful things about Jungian psychology with its discovery of the new God-image for Unitarian Universalists is that it undergirds all of our diversity. We have UU Humanists, and UU Christians and UU Buddhists, and UU Pagans. All of us have dreams, and all of us, because of our freedom from dogma and our difficulty identifying with Jung's, "happy possessors, of faith" are quite likely to be building on the universal structure of the dream I have given you.

Jungians believe they serve something greater than themselves. They believe they are serving God by witnessing God's progressive incarnation as it expresses itself in their dreams. Many Jungians believe there is a transcendent God and that the God-image is the way It expresses Itself on the INSIDE. Christian Jungians may believe that Christ and His life are the first expression of the progressing God-image on both the OUTSIDE and the INSIDE in an individual human being. Jungians feel they help give God a place in human affairs by becoming more conscious. Partly they become more conscious through acknowledging and withdrawing projections. Through their commitment to making the unconscious conscious, they believe they are helping God to become more human as they in turn are coming into an awareness of their divinity. Speaking of living his own life as a commitment to the unconscious, Jung wrote, "But it seems to me that life was never wanting, and in the blackest night even, and just there, by the Grace of God, I could see a great light. Somewhere there seems to be a great kindness in God." (Cited in a lecture by Brewster Beach as a portion of a late letter).

Students of Jungian thought are often not churchgoers, but if they are they tend to be members of Unitarian Universalist, Quaker, Episcopalian, and Roman Catholic congregations. A number of them are Protestant ministers, Episcopalian priests, and Roman Catholic nuns and Spiritual Directors. They can be found in Islamic Sufi orders, Buddhist gatherings and in Jewish temples. Jungians are indeed Universalists, because archetypes are universal and the collective unconscious feeds all people like an underground stream. Local UUs might be interested to learn that in many cities that house official Jung Institutes such as San Francisco, the Jung Institutes offer their public programs at UU churches.

Jungians write down their dreams. They work with their dreams, associating to the dream images and amplifying them with contents from world religions, myths, fairy tales, and classical works of art and literature. For guides they use books and conferences and teachers. They often undergo formal Jungian analysis for a while. They spend time in nature and cathedrals and in other sacred places and they create sacred spaces. They may go on pilgrimages and keep the Sabbath. They honor God wherever they find God. In many ways, perhaps, they experience God as the Holy Spirit. (Incidentally, Jung said that the Age of Yahweh, which corresponds to tribal monotheism, was the age of the Father. The Age of Christ, which corresponds to universal monotheism was the Age of the Son. And the next two thousand years, corresponding to the New God-image or Individuation, is the Age of the Holy Spirit.) Jungians may attend religious services of their own and other traditions, recognizing the universal archetypes beneath their culturally colored expressions.

Jungians, work with sand trays and with art supplies, drawing and painting what they have seen of meaning in their dreams and on vision quests. They find that as they turn a loving face to the unconscious with its central God archetype, they are blessed with meaningful dreams and synchronicities. In owning their own shadows or dark sides as they see them revealed in dreams -- owning them so as not to project them or act them out, Jungians believe they are doing a moral task that is making the world a better place.

Engaging with the new God-image as a conscious way of life involves attention to and development of the interior life. It is a mystical path, and it is not everyone's call. Perhaps, like Little Gopher and C.G. Jung, one does not even choose. It is chosen for one. Benefitting from the psychology which Jung discovered and gave to the world, however, is something all of us can enjoy. We speak of complexes, psychic energy organized around archetypes, like a mother complex or father complex. We reflect on introversion, extroversion and psychological types, all legacies of Jung. When we embrace the Jungian paradigm, we are able to understand collective religious expressions in a way that can render them meaningful. For example, the feminine aspect of the Divine comes to life in the symbol of Mary when considered from a Jungian standpoint. In 1950 Pope Pius XII proclaimed the dogma of the Ascension of the Blessed Virgin. Jung set high value on the dogma because of the importance it attributes to the feminine element which stands for nature and matter. The declaration of the physical ascension of Mary leads to the presumption that nature/matter can be received into the metaphysical realm. According to the earlier view, this realm was reserved to the masculine principle, to spirit alone. When we are out gathering water for our collective pond during our travels this summer, or spending time in nature, or recycling, we might want to reflect on the beauty of this dogma.

I would like to conclude my presentation with these words of Carl Gustav Jung: "I thank God every day that I have been permitted to experience the reality of the [Image of God] in me. Had that not been so, I would be a bitter enemy of Christianity and of the church in particular. Thanks to this act of grace, my life has meaning and my inner eye was opened to the beauty and grandeur of dogma. No matter what the world thinks of religious experience, the one who has it possesses a great treasure, a thing that has become for him a source of life, Meaning, and beauty, and that has given a new splendor to the world and to mankind. He has a [living faith] and a peace." (C.G. Jung, Word and Image).

Suggested Readings (All available at Amazon.com)
Edinger, Edward F.

The Creation of Consciousness
Ego and Archetype
The New God Image

Johnson, Robert A.

Balancing Heaven and Earth (autobiography)
Contentment: the Art of True Happiness
Inner Work: Using Dreams and Active Imagination for Personal Growth
He: Understanding Masculine Psychology
She: Understanding Feminine Psychology
Owning Your Own Shadow: Understanding the Dark Side of the Psyche

Jung, Carl G.

Answer to Job
The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious
Man and His Symbols
Memories, Dreams, Reflections (autobiography)
The Portable Jung

I have problems with this statement, nowhere:
</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
speaking directly to the subject of God, the archtype has existed for millenia, as early as the oldest known cave paintings, and probably earlier than that still...

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
in that it seems to imply that the archtype is the same as the "object" being typified. What I think/believe about a thing is not the same as the actual thing I'm thinking/believing about. The type "woman" has existed for the same length of time as that of "god" but the type is not the thing, itself and doesn't define or even prove the existance of the object. "Love" exists but you can't prove it anymore than you can prove "God" exists and yet some people know about Love but not God and others claim to know about God but do not know about Love. That "God is Love" is not a very helpful statement if you don't know what God is or what Love is. The archtype of God the Father is not very helpful if your own "father" was an abuser or otherwise fell very far short of being the man he "should" have been. I'm not sure that archtypes are always helpful in "explaining" or showing or proving the existance of other archtypes or "objects"/concepts but they're pretty much all we have. But sometimes they can be dangerous unless the "object" itself can be part of an actual personal experience that changes one's knowledge. I'm looking for experiences of the Object rather than its "shadow" archtype.

I am interested in everyones beliefs and how they were formed..I will read this probably a few time's, so I can get a understanding

thanks for sharing
Eddie

i see Perna... thanks for pointing that out.. i agree, the "object" and the archetype are definately separate imo also...

i use archetypes because they are items of reference, definately not the real thing and why i state, God is much more than an archetype in my post...

"God as an Archetype is something i am very interested in... of course, God is more than a character in a story, yet, it is through the stories that most of us make the connections to that which lives outside ourselves.."

thanks for reading and sharing..

thanks Eddie... any comments/opinions are appreciated.. not trying to change anyones beliefs though, just expressing my own...

But that's what I'm saying; the stories only show us where to look for our own unique/individual experiences of connection to that which lives outside ourselves. I don't want to connect to the story, I want to connect to the object! That's like reading about therapy instead of being in a relationship with a therapist.

right! exactly... use the story if you like.. not so different than using the Bible, or the Koran, or any "tool".. Jung even used these texts himself... if you can skip it however, awesome!!!

don't worry about me....mine will only change when a change is needed and since my beliefs are not organized yet,it helps me to see other ways of looking at things that I don't already know

thanks again

Coral, my work here is complete ... ok, i shouldnt say that...

sometimes i think, despite my horrid memories, i have been blessed in one special way.. to live in a community with choices in philosophical exposure.. maybe not as great as some larger cities, but, better than being restricted to someplace w/o outside influence whatever as was the small town i used to live in

choices... thank goodness for them...

I am not saying anything against what you believe in, but I would add a note of caution. I did a lot of research a few years ago on Carl Jung, and his life and beliefs. He in many ways was always pushing the envelope, or better said was never satisfied with the simpleness of Christianity, but wanted more. His beliefs are a mix of many different religions, but mostly that of the far east.
There in lies the danger. I don't think we are suppose to look inside our selves for God. The God, I worship is outside myself high in the heavens above me. I only hold the essence of Him & the Holy Spirit within me. The use of repetitive prayer and meditation can open us up to the spirits of Satan, who has the ability to imatate God, thus fooling us into believeing what we are feeling and seeing, being healed of and perhapes saying is coming from God, when it is not. Although, your beliefs are not mine, I respect your opinion on this subject. (((nowheretorun)))

Perna, i just wanted to add that i agree with you, going directly to the source is the ultimate... your point that archetypes are once removed from the original, and likewise, teaching about an object is also removed from the object by at least one step... the archetypes circumnavigate the teacher/student relationship, allowing a creative person to educate him/herself...

as for the dangers associated, yeah, be careul...

but as these concepts are graduated from their original inception, more common are the dynamics of these theories and less "chunky" for consumption... and less dangerous as the article states in different wording..

not meant to be an insult in anyway, but i wish that i had the gift of words you seem to possess... i'm certain my point would come across much more clearly.. thank you..

I live in the largest but least populated rual county in southeastern NC...mainly nothing but bible thumpers if they are religious,with the metality if your not with them your against them...in my opinion....I'm all alone with my crazy thoughts on religion..so the internet and threads like these have been a life saver for me..and people I'm around that are not religious..

not that I have a problem with them thumping their bibles..lol

atleast I got the southern accent though, lol

well 1oxbow, i hope you know i am your friend and respect your views as well... however, it would be very easy for me to launch an attack on some other beliefs and i choose not to...

And I am proud of you for not doing that. I was not trying to be hurtful. Politics and religion, are 2 subjects that I generally stay away from talking about in forums, as well as, in person. We are all entitled to our own opinion, and most people's opinions are very different from each other and dragging it out in serves no purpose.
You believe different from me, and I was only sharing what I learned from many days and hours doing research. I am sorry if I offended you, my friend.

not at all, not offended, and your caution is well taken... something that i had in fact read in my own research.. something that a few faiths also support.. that delving into the mystical aspects of faith can be damaging to a persons psyche...

in Buddhism, one is to ignore these "mystical experiences" such as possessions by other dieties, or experiencing phenomena ... because these "distractions" are disruptive to the true path... and yes, it has happened to me...

i am not offended oxbow, you've made an important point..

I personally don't mind God being used as an example to follow. That is the basic definition of archetype.

However, I do personally draw the line with Jung's definition as reference of God as an archetype: an inherited pattern of thought or symbollic imagery, derived from the past collective experience and present in the individual unconscious. I do believe that God always was, is, and will be. Should we be archetypes of God, instead?

...but that is only YOUR belief sky.....

no offence meant at all..... but not everyone has your belief....

Jin x

so true Jinny....

Everyone should be able to have their beliefs... sometimes people... push very hard to make their belliefs.. be "the one" and only on a public forum..

no offense SKY

(huggs jinny...you are always so open minded and accepting of others)... love you...

((((((thankyou Freewill)))))

love to you, I dont want to cause hatm or offense, but as people keep repeating, it's an open discussion .....

thanks, Jin xx

thanks ladies... Sky, where's the support?

But Sky's point is very valid to this discussion! Which comes first, the individual or "God"? Who has thought up whom?

I believe Sky, that God Is, as you state. However, how do I "learn"/get to "know" this and what is "It" that I get to know? I believe I have experienced love and that I have experienced God's Love but there is no way to share that experience or experience someone else's experience because I am an individual. I think the archtype and Jung's collective unconscious is the best approximation of sharing/knowing another's experience. Jesus told a great many stories, the Bible is full of stories, more stories than direct "instruction" about God or how one was to relate to God. I think the stories serve the purpose of adding to all that is "known" about God, down through time; which describes, for my purposes, pretty much what Jung is stating. I can only "know" God through myself and my insides; I have never been able to find him "out there".

did i at anytime suggest that we worship archetypes? where are you people getting that?

and dangit, do any of you know of any religious text besides the Bible?

Don't think we're talking about worship? Mostly how one "knows" God? That's what I'm talking about at least

What other text would you like to discuss? Confucius is not a god, nor I think was Siddhattha Buddha? Mohammed was "the" Prophet; I only know of one God.

It's not just about God though is it.....at least not in the usual sense .... it's about other ways of thinking too ....