Re: dualism

[Guest guest]

Will resp wh poss! I was not taking it fr a Buddhist point of view! Not

wishing t fudge, S, but I am unable to pull books fr shelf w/one hand, so will

have

to wait for help, but I am reasonably sure that Jung's concept of the Self

hinted at unity. It would be absurd not to! In the Bbc interview as well. His

duality had to do w/ego consc n the Div Guest dwells in the UNC so the unity can

only be exper thru heart not thru consciousness.

Will get back to this.

No ad hominem intended! I have the deepest respect for yr opinions.

love

ao

agree ab tautology - we are dualistic even in debating this!

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Eve. Jung remarked that one of the longest journeys a human being

takes is from the mind to the heart.

By equating samadhi w/unc my underst is that unc applies to ego n samadhi

transcends.

There is a similar diff between irrational n non-rational.

ao

Somedody check BBC interv ab what J said ab death.

It's funny but my intuition tells me that we will find the proof!

Hope I'm right!

'umbly, ao

[Guest guest]

Alice,

There shouldn't be any confusion about Jung's view of unity. It is

presumed both in particulars and any illimitable conception primary

to consciousness.

The point I previously made was in response to your response that

Jung *WASN'T* a dualist. Unity in multiplicity and multiplicity in

unity is largely irrelevant. We have a category problem going here.

It was Jung's strange inability to even consider what it would be to

take Buddhism on its own psychological terms that etches his

axiomatic dualism in stone for persons who are able to note this most

simple error.

***

>A " His

>duality had to do w/ego consc

exactly. ...poached eggs.

(Whereas this is most interesting,)

>A:n the Div Guest dwells in the UNC so the unity can

only be exper thru heart not thru consciousness.

This begs the question whether this heart is a faculty altogether not

of dualistic consciousness, or, is dualistic itself, (i.e. different

than consciousness but also a subject/object descriptive construct,)

or, is the construct allowing for something along the lines of a

non-dual unitary awareness of itself, and of unity unified.

I don't know where Jung takes a non-dual position on all of this.

regards,

[Guest guest]

Oh, Steve - if only I cld use my rt hand!

If someone cld scan the last p n 1/2 of the chap on Death in MDR! That hints

at his pers belief.

In the meantime, will have to abbrev:

1. J cert was dualistic in mak distinct between Ego/Self [Div Guest

Former, ctr of CONSC; latter indwelling spark but in UNC ergo beyond

definition.

2. These opposites then are to be held until they can be united.

3. His fasc w/alchemy was bec the aim of sun/moon;king/queen/dark/light was

the coniunctio mysterionis.

4. What we tend to leave out is LOVE wh makes the union possible! The Mystery

we call God is said to be to the cosmos wh the DG is to us as indiv. Pure

superconsciousness needed to love n know itself loved in return - this is the

symbolic explanation for creation.

5. J was therefore also deeply inter in the Buddhist THE SECRET OF THE GOLDEN

FLOWER. n wrote an introd to it. [incidentally, the tonka frontispiece is one

I have an identical twin to, except for dorje arr in center. It was giv to me

by a frnd of my mother's who bought it in Peking bef WW 1. I took a pic of it

to Dharmsala n showed it to The Oracle who expl that J's = aspect of passive

wisdom n mine=active wisdon]. We met His Holiness n he asked to have his pic

taken holding my Woodstock. He spent a gd time talking w/Water.A lovely,

strong, cheerful, radiant being!]

6. I do not know if u have J's CW, but if u do, u may have noticed that he

changed slowly as he grew older. The change seems to start w Vol. 8. For inst -

bef that he speaks of the Holy Ghost as HE but then after years of study/medit

realizes the Holy Spirit=Sophia n dove, her symbol. I wish Edinger were still

w/us bec he cld put yr heart to rest.

7. The CW are his prof works writt at a time wh he was rejected as a wooly

mystic etc. so he is cautious in expressing his views as 'scientifically as

poss. U get a whole diff J in his Letters Vol 1 n 2! Read his Intro to Susuki's

Zen Buddhism n check Buddhism in the Vol. Index to CW.

8. I cannot hope to change yr mind but I cn beg u to reconsider this harsh

criticism of J.

9. As for myself pers my moment of samadhi :} came on a fire escape in

Greenwich Village in 1945. I looked up at the sun n realized THE SUN SHINES! IT

DIDN'T HAVE TO!!! Creation happened! n even if it is all maya/illusion, the

illusion itself exists.

Funny story: I was lect on this topic n writing on a huge blackboard and as I

said those very words, the blackboard fell down on my foot n broke my toe! I

cont lect sitt on dais w/foot in ice bucket n holding Woodstock, looking like

a bloody Tarot card!:]

10. Anyway, that something happened, the sun shines, was a revelation. Pure

unconsciousness is not what I personally believe the aim of Buddhism is. It is

the realization that despite all the 10,000 things [diversity] we are all ONE

- simile they use - waves on top of ocean. And then there are the Bodhisattvas

who return n will cont to ret until all sentient beings come to realize this

n mebbe we at J-F are baby Bodhisattvas, judging by the sincerity of questors

ar the Fire n contributors such as yr good self!

Ph. just rang, my d. Beth is back in hospital - her first time since Nov to

go on an outing! Stay tuned. Pryrs welcome. It might be gall bladder this time?

" What the world needs now is Love, sweet Love. " tra-la.

How can love exist w/out an object? Koan for tonight!

love,truly

ao

[Guest guest]

Dear Alice,

The last 2 chapters of MDR made me fall in love with Jung.

I am so sorry that beth is having such a hard time, and therefore you too.

Much love and prayers.

Toni

I love the picture in my mind with his Holiness holding woodstock. I had such

high hopes for this pope, but he could not escape his background and really

neither can we.

Re: dualism

Oh, Steve - if only I cld use my rt hand!

If someone cld scan the last p n 1/2 of the chap on Death in MDR! That hints

at his pers belief.

In the meantime, will have to abbrev:

1. J cert was dualistic in mak distinct between Ego/Self [Div Guest

Former, ctr of CONSC; latter indwelling spark but in UNC ergo beyond

definition.

2. These opposites then are to be held until they can be united.

3. His fasc w/alchemy was bec the aim of sun/moon;king/queen/dark/light was

the coniunctio mysterionis.

4. What we tend to leave out is LOVE wh makes the union possible! The Mystery

we call God is said to be to the cosmos wh the DG is to us as indiv. Pure

superconsciousness needed to love n know itself loved in return - this is the

symbolic explanation for creation.

5. J was therefore also deeply inter in the Buddhist THE SECRET OF THE GOLDEN

FLOWER. n wrote an introd to it. [incidentally, the tonka frontispiece is one

I have an identical twin to, except for dorje arr in center. It was giv to me

by a frnd of my mother's who bought it in Peking bef WW 1. I took a pic of it

to Dharmsala n showed it to The Oracle who expl that J's = aspect of passive

wisdom n mine=active wisdon]. We met His Holiness n he asked to have his pic

taken holding my Woodstock. He spent a gd time talking w/Water.A lovely,

strong, cheerful, radiant being!]

6. I do not know if u have J's CW, but if u do, u may have noticed that he

changed slowly as he grew older. The change seems to start w Vol. 8. For inst

-

bef that he speaks of the Holy Ghost as HE but then after years of study/medit

realizes the Holy Spirit=Sophia n dove, her symbol. I wish Edinger were still

w/us bec he cld put yr heart to rest.

7. The CW are his prof works writt at a time wh he was rejected as a wooly

mystic etc. so he is cautious in expressing his views as 'scientifically as

poss. U get a whole diff J in his Letters Vol 1 n 2! Read his Intro to

Susuki's

Zen Buddhism n check Buddhism in the Vol. Index to CW.

8. I cannot hope to change yr mind but I cn beg u to reconsider this harsh

criticism of J.

9. As for myself pers my moment of samadhi :} came on a fire escape in

Greenwich Village in 1945. I looked up at the sun n realized THE SUN SHINES!

IT

DIDN'T HAVE TO!!! Creation happened! n even if it is all maya/illusion, the

illusion itself exists.

Funny story: I was lect on this topic n writing on a huge blackboard and as I

said those very words, the blackboard fell down on my foot n broke my toe! I

cont lect sitt on dais w/foot in ice bucket n holding Woodstock, looking like

a bloody Tarot card!:]

10. Anyway, that something happened, the sun shines, was a revelation. Pure

unconsciousness is not what I personally believe the aim of Buddhism is. It is

the realization that despite all the 10,000 things [diversity] we are all ONE

- simile they use - waves on top of ocean. And then there are the Bodhisattvas

who return n will cont to ret until all sentient beings come to realize this

n mebbe we at J-F are baby Bodhisattvas, judging by the sincerity of questors

ar the Fire n contributors such as yr good self!

Ph. just rang, my d. Beth is back in hospital - her first time since Nov to

go on an outing! Stay tuned. Pryrs welcome. It might be gall bladder this

time?

" What the world needs now is Love, sweet Love. " tra-la.

How can love exist w/out an object? Koan for tonight!

love,truly

ao

[Guest guest]

Alice, all,

You frustrate me!

Let me rearrange the elevation of my prejudices. After 20+ years of a

compelling study of religion and psychology, my judgements on Dr.

Jung and his 60+ years of studies, and 50 cents, cannot today

purchase a cup of coffee down the street at Starbucks.

I agree with everything you wrote.

>A:Pure

>unconsciousness is not what I personally believe the aim of Buddhism is.

So this is correct BUT pure unconsciousness being the aim of Buddhist

practice was Jung's view and it is wrong. imo His dualism sticks him

to this position. I see now that you agree Jung was in error.

So, to recap, Jung did not become a Buddhist. He did not study

Buddhist psychology in depth. He did not understand that the fine

grain of Buddhist practice and the incredibly rich categorical

descriptions of psychological states in Buddhism could not be

shoe-horned into his own biased perspective.

(In fact, Jung's categorical descriptions are few compared to the

abundant and fine parsing of psychological states in Buddhism and its

phenomenology.)

His perspective *starts* from subject/object dualism. So does

Buddhism's psychology. Not only that but the point of Buddhism is

what do you do after you've had the insight that the the ground of

being is all there really is.

You come back to the world, you integrate it's infinite relations

into your awareness and go to work alleviating suffering.

This is only my take based in my experience and practice starting in

1973. No cup of coffee possible. No mind, no problem.

***

I am well aware of the change in Jung's thinking. This is to me the

most fascinating move in all of his work. The last pages of MDR nail

it down, especially about his personal attitude and what he thought

about what he finally had come to know.

One of the interesting things about all of this is that one can

entertain the idea that Jung's thinking toward the end was on the

brink of a profound comprehension of the fullness of relations of

human development. He didn't get there, yet, this is important

because the critical turn could have encompassed and made an account

of the fact that people individuate and live rich and creative lives

without doing anything more than being who they really are to be.

This is possible in the light of the transcendent function

functioning in completely mysterious ways and harkens back to the

class of aphorisms, one of which goes like this:

*the generous fool surely enters heaven whilst the most pious saint may not*

We're each and everyone of us Bodhisattvas*, we just aren't very

adept yet at bringing things to a full enough stop to wake up and

smell the coffee!

regards, much love,

* if you really don't feel you are, try to pretend so...experiment.

--

Love all and hate none. Mere talk of peace will avail you naught.

Mere talk of God and religion will not take you far. Bring out all of

the latent powers of your being And reveal the full magnificence of

your immortal self. Be surcharged with peace and joy, And scatter

them wherever you are and wherever you go. Be a blazing fire of

truth, Be a beauteous blossom of love and a soothing balm of peace.

With your spiritual light dispel the darkness of ignorance; Dissolve

the clouds of discord and war. Spread the message of goodwill, peace

and harmony among the people. Never seek any help, charity or favours

from anybody except God. Never go to the courts of Kings, But never

refuse to bless and help the needy and the poor, the widow and the

orphan when they come to your door. This is your mission, to serve

the people...

Hazrat Shah Goolam Mahomed Nizami Habibi

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

I am not even a lurker, merely an ex-lurker. I clicked on this by

chance, and came across your interesting discussion. If I may jump in

briefly...

> >A:n the Div Guest dwells in the UNC so the unity can

> only be exper thru heart not thru consciousness.

>

> This begs the question whether this heart is a faculty altogether

not

> of dualistic consciousness, or, is dualistic itself, (i.e.

different

> than consciousness but also a subject/object descriptive

construct,)

> or, is the construct allowing for something along the lines of a

> non-dual unitary awareness of itself, and of unity unified.

I think the last - a bridge between the two poles of ego and Self?

I'm not sure if Jung says this, though. (Alice does, if I understand

her correctly, and it's consistent with my limited experience and

understanding.)

> I don't know where Jung takes a non-dual position on all of this.

How about Psychological Types, and his essay on the Transcendent

function? (I am citing from memory, and I don't have the CW handy, so

forgive the inexact recall.) Specifically, he talks at length about

the *futility* of " pulling up " the inferior function via

consciousness (or rather, three other functions brought to

consciousness), since the inferior function is so hopelessly meshed

with the Unconscious. More importantly for the current discussion,

Jung talks about how the other three functions have to

partially " descend " to the same plane as the inferior function that

has partially been pulled up. This plane per Jung is " in-between "

(and hence, different from) the plane of consciousness *and* the

plane of the unconscious. The " transcendent function " is the name for

this virtual space from which the person then operates-- i.e., it's

real subjectively but ill-defined (non-existent; meaningless babble)

until you get there. Jung is clear that the transcendent function is

neither a possession of (nor equivalent to) consciousness, nor is it

contained in the unconscious. Functionally, it unifies the two. Where

is the " Ego " of such a One? What is the Self/Unc for such a One?

Perhaps the tf is a synonym for the term " Heart " that Alice uses.

On correlations with the East:

" Acting " from the tf implies an actor-subject and an acted-upon

object (duality) at one level, but seamlessly guided by " what is

right " (reading Jung between the lines; his favorite rain-maker story

told elsewhere comes to mind; his use of the term " transcendent " for

this fifth function is revealing). Could " what-is-right " be

the " Compassionate Wisdom " of Buddhism (another placeholder--

meaningless until you get there, akin to the " Unconditional Love "

ideal) ? Couldn't " residing " in this space of the tf be viewed as

a " non-dual consciousness " different from mere ego-consciousness

(with the term " consciousness " in the various Jung-quotes being used

as a shorthand for ego-consciousness; hence the confusion)? And is

this so different from the Non-Dualistic teachings? i.e., from the

vantage of the tf, there is no separation of doer-- just the right-

doing.

Just thinking out loud...

Thanks for listening, and Regards,

- Anand

[Guest guest]

Anand, all,

Terrific post from my POV.

A:Jung is clear that the transcendent function is neither a

possession of (nor equivalent to) consciousness, nor is it contained

in the unconscious. Functionally, it unifies the two. Where is the

" Ego " of such a One? What is the Self/Unc for such a One?

This is the unanswered question. There's no evidence that Jung

departs from his fundamental posit that experience must be experience

" of something " . But, this said, your qualification " another

placeholder-- meaningless until you get there " is very important.

There's a lot of pressure created here, yet, the difference between a

hypothesis built on inference, and, direct experience, was notably

allowed for by Jung too.

***

There's a very short and important formulation of Nagarjuna's that

explicates the following assumption. Crucially, this assumption

requires an experiential inquiry.

" Now, the Buddha did not say that there was no subjective " I, " but

rather that there was no actual person to act as a referent for the

concept " I " . It is clear we all use the label " I " and all experience

an " I " as an apparent subject of " our " experiences, but the Buddha

showed that upon analysis no actual entity of a self can be found

that corresponds to that experience of " I " which is wrapped up in

common subjective experience. " (Komito, Nagarjuna's Seventy Stanzas,

1987)

Stanza 20

If there is no arising and enduring, which are functional phenomena,

then there can be no disintegration or cessation, which are

non-functional phenomena; so the latter would be non-existent. If a

phenomenon were to exist inherently it must have arisen from its own

nature or from some other nature, but it cannot arise from its own

nature and because a phenomenon cannot have a different nature than

its cause, so it cannot arise from some other nature which has

inherent existence. Because of that, a functional phenomenon cannot

exist inherently and because a functional phenomenon cannot exist

inherently, so a non-functional phenomenon cannot exist inherently.

Stanza 57

Consciousness cannot arise without taking its object, so it depends

on the object of knowledge. The object of knowledge cannot arise

without depending on the consciousness which apprehends it, and there

because they exist in a mutually dependent way both of them lack

inherent existence. The object of knowledge and the apprehension of

the object do not exist inherently, therefore the person who knows

the object does not exist inherently.

***

This cannot do the Socratic form of the Stanzas any justice. However,

the argument from the early stanzas will develop the idea of

interdependent origination, proceed through the middle stanzas to

resolve the illusory subjectivity and end with the implications for

action clarified by the experience of nirvana.

Jung did not have a lot of Buddhist sources in translation to work

from in his time. Almost none of the Tibetan source material was

available to him. The Taoist (and syncretic with respect to Chan

Buddhism,) text, The Secret of the Golden Flower, and the Buddhist

text, The Tibetan Book of the Dead, Jung worked from are not today

the most respectable versions.

The key fault is coming at this with the predisposition that falsely

dichotomizes consciousness and unconsciousness.

Anand, you've pointed out the third position. If it's ontological

status is hard to capture, nonetheless to psychologize this demands a

subtle discernment between indirect inference and direct experience.

Stanza 72

Those who have faith in the teaching of emptiness will strive for it

through a number of different kinds of reasoning. Whatever they have

understood about it in terms of non-inherent existence, they clarify

this for others, which helps others to obtain nirvana [tranquility]

by grasping at the apparently true existence of cyclic existence and

non-cyclic existence.

***

Needless to say where there is strict agreement is in the import of:

of don't take anybody's word for any of this!

Anand, you put this last suggestion in certain relief, as Alice does

too, in her previous post.

regards,