The Deification of the Psyche: Carl Jung and the Spiritual Crisis of the Modern World

Carl Jung (1875–1961), a pivotal figure in modern Western psychology. He regarded the loss of religion to be a major factor in mental illness and a significant cause of the malaise of modernity. He pursued more holistic treatments, unfashionable in an age more attuned to scientific reductionism. He treated patients as real people rather than as objects of diagnostic interest, and promoted a more expansive understanding of mental illness. However, Jung's efforts to introduce a spiritual dimension into modern psychology have arguably been harmful because he attempted to construct a psychological system without adequately relating the psyche to its metaphysical foundations. Controversially, Jung replaced sacred tradition with a secular psychology that offered a new—yet fundamentally misguided—path of salvation for seekers in a post-Christian world.

Keywords: Carl Jung, Analytical Psychology, Depth Psychology, Psychologism, Metaphysics

Carl Gustav Jung (1875–1961) was a highly influential 20th–century thinker, and a key figure in the history of modern Western psychology. Jung became known through his association with his one-time mentor Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) through the latter’s seminal contributions to the development of the psychoanalytic movement.Freud considered Jung “a bridge to the Gentile world”[[1]] and identified his protégé as the successor of the psychoanalytic movement, referring to him as the “crown prince.”[[2]] Jung ultimately developed his own school: analytical psychology. His ideas have been widely disseminated down to the present day, and his theories have taken root in the modern understanding of psychology to the same degree as those of Freud.

Although Jung is often viewed more favorably than Freud, he too remains a controversial figure, as he himself acknowledged: “I am certainly a heretic.”[[3]] It is often assumed that Jung was more balanced in his theories than his former master (which is why he parted ways with him) and, although in some ways that was true, this did not completely reflect reality. By tracing the relationship between him and Freud—and the development of his own psychological system—we can better understand, not only how they differ, but how they were both fundamentally aiming to fill the vacuum left by the absence of the sacred in the modern world, with their own ‘counter-religion’ of psychology.

As did his predecessor, Jung also affirmed the Weltanschauung or totalizing worldview with far-ranging cultural implications, beyond what would ordinarily be revealed on a therapist’s couch:

The funneling of the individual conflict into the general moral problem puts psychoanalysis far outside the confines of a merely medical therapy. It gives the patient a working philosophy of life based on empirical insights, which, besides affording him a knowledge of his own nature, also make it possible for him to fit himself into this scheme of things.[[4]]

Through statements like these, we can see how modern psychology—not only for Jung and Freud but as a whole—has inserted itself into every domain of life, thereby giving rise to the ubiquitous culture of therapy that we find today.

To his credit, Jung attributed the malaise of the modern world to its loss of religion, and the mental health crisis to which it gave rise. He also challenged the dominant scientific reductionism pervasive in his time and pursued more holistic forms of treatment when they were not popular. Jung viewed the individuals he treated as real people rather than merely as objects of diagnostic interest,[[5]] and held to a more expansive understanding of mental illness. Recognizing the reality of the human soul and consciousness, he questioned the overriding narratives that regarded them as merely epiphenomena or solely as products of neurochemistry. Though he never developed his ideas about the sacred, at his most lucid, Jung did acknowledge that the sacred is not only transcendent, but also a reality that dwells within all human beings. He traveled widely in order to learn from traditional people and their spiritual cultures, fostering an interest in how their perspectives could be applied to the discipline of psychology.

Yet, in spite of his evident respect for the importance of religion in human life, the shadow of Jung’s influence actually led to the undermining of bona fide religion and to the entrenchment of a rampant psychologism (the reduction of all reality to psychological factors). This brought about a serious confusion between the psychic and spiritual orders of reality, both within the discipline of psychology and beyond. There is a tendency to minimize the importance of Divine transcendence and to focus solely on Divine immanence. This view fails to recognize the traditional understanding that there cannot in fact be any immanence without transcendence as these are complementary notions in the strictest possible sense­—a foundational metaphysical principle that Jung overlooked or did not deem important. For example, Jung remarked that “The world of gods and spirits is truly ‘nothing but’ the collective unconscious inside me;”[[6]] and pointed to his “demonstration of the psychic origin of religious phenomena”[[7]] to assert that “‘Spirit’ is a psychic fact.”[[8]] Rather than grounding reality in the Spirit, consistent with the insights of the world’s spiritual traditions, Jung presented “the essence of all things” as being “grounded in the psyche.”[[9]]

The world’s spiritual and wisdom traditions, by contrast, teach a complete “science of the soul,” which is more than just a ‘psychology,’ but a fully integrated worldview able to impart saving truths. The phenomenon of psychologism stems back to the emergence of modern Western psychology and is central to its foundations. Jung summarized Freud’s contribution to the discipline in a revealing way: “[T]he lost god had now to be sought below, not above.”[[10]] However, following in Freud’s footsteps, Jung took psychologism to a new level of confusion. The conflation of the psychic and spiritual realms is reflected in the New Age movement that Jung was instrumental in pioneering.[[11]] He was aware of the ever-growing interest in psychic phenomena and alternative forms of spirituality that were gradually making themselves known in the modern world. Of analytical psychology, it has been said that it “loses itself in a perfect maze of mysticism, occultism, and theosophy ... [and] abandon[s] the methods and canons of science.”[[12]] Jung had a deep interest in the occult, as is reflected in the title of his doctoral dissertation for his medical degree: “On the Psychology and Pathology of So-Called Occult Phenomena” (1902).[[13]]

Jung is often perceived as a bridge-maker between modern psychology and the spiritual traditions. He informs us that his aim was “to build a bridge of psychological understanding between East and West”[[14]] and he claimed to have discovered an “agreement between the psychic states and symbolisms of East and West.”[[15]] Furthermore, he states that “through my analytic work ... I arrived at an understanding ... of all religions.”[[16]] However, when we examine this claim more closely, we find that Jung did not understand religion in its proper etymological sense, from the Latin religare, meaning to “re-link” or “bind back” (to the Divine). Jung’s error was missed by many who assessed his legacy, and touted him as a seminal religious thinker. An example of this can be seen in the remark from the British historian of religions R.C. Zaehner (1913–1974), who noted that Jung “has ... done more to interpret Eastern religion to the West than any other man.”[[17]] This is a grandiose assessment, yet Zaehner goes further when he remarks approvingly that “Jung has in fact ... reduced [religion] to purely subjective and psychological terms”[[18]] which the Oxford professor regarded as something to be altogether commended.

If we do not properly distinguish between the psychic and spiritual orders, we will not be able to make sense of Jungian psychology. As Ananda Coomaraswamy (1877–1947) noted: “[W]hereas empirical science is only concerned with man himself ‘in search of a soul,’ metaphysical science is concerned with this self’s immortal Self, the Soul of the soul.”[[19]]

Some closest to Jung, even within his inner circle, did not fully understand him.[[20]] This, in large part, stemmed from a certain ambiguity, if not contradiction, in Jung’s theories. There is evidence that he intended to be opaque: “The language I speak must be ambiguous, must have two meanings.”[[21]] Nonetheless, it is incumbent on us to evaluate his theories so as to clarify the difficulties in his ideas, with a view to determining how they converge with, or diverge from, a true “science of the soul” as found in humanity’s spiritual traditions.

The Ambiguity of Jungian Psychology

Someone rooted in a sacred tradition, wanting to understand how religions are understood in light of Jung’s psychology, will necessarily encounter a myriad of obstacles. This is because Jung, in a way similar to Freud, defined terms in his own particular way, sometimes ignoring traditional precisions. While these imprecisions may also be found within religions themselves, Jung’s peculiar aberrations include using the same terms differently depending on the context, and often contradicting himself, without providing the reader with any adequate explanation of why he does so.

Terms such as “archetype” or “transcendent,” as used by Jung, do not refer to anything in the spiritual realm; neither does his understanding of “wholeness” relate to a way of being that is rooted in the sacred. His anomalous adoption of traditional terms serves to confound the reader who attempts to render their meaning intelligible.

Jungian psychology claims to offer those in the modern world a new post-Christian path of salvation, but this is a promise on which Jung fails to deliver. To regard Jungian psychology as a substitute for sacred tradition is not only ill-advised but decidedly dangerous. Authentic spiritual traditions invariably teach us how to integrate the human psyche into the Spirit, thereby requiring a clear understanding of both dimensions and of the sacred aspect of integration. Terms such as “archetype” or “transcendent,” as used by Jung, do not refer to anything in the spiritual realm; neither does his understanding of “wholeness” relate to a way of being that is rooted in the sacred. His anomalous adoption of traditional terms serves to confound the reader who attempts to render their meaning intelligible. The traditional use of these terms relies not only on doctrines to support those on a spiritual path, but also on a method for aiding realization. Jung often emphasizes the psychic cul-de-sac found in his work. At one point he asserts: “I am and remain a psychologist. I am not interested in anything that transcends the psychological content of human experience. I do not even ask myself whether such transcendence is possible.”[[22]] Whitall N. Perry (1920–2005) offers the following reflection on the implications of this admission:

[H]is work has opened irreversible access to the subliminal world of influences from the lower and eminently subjective and relativistic prolongations of the psychic domain or inferior reaches of the subtle order, which border on what is truly infernal. The pattern is really an inversion of the way in which primordial man saw the Archetypes through the transparency of things. With Jung in particular we are back to ‘archetypes’ again, but from below rather than from above, from the nether realms rather than the celestial.[[23]]

Jung’s idiosyncratic use of religious concepts is ultimately hostile to the traditional understanding of what a person is. If he ultimately rejects anything outside the human psyche, why does he appropriate the language of religion? It would appear that Jung rejects any conventional understanding of religion so as to be free of its constraints. Yet he also wants to construct his system of psychology on the basis of religion’s inner or mystical dimension, without adopting the traditional structures that are necessary to its integrity.

This is a psychological adaptation of “the religion of no religion”[[24]] popularized by Frederic Spiegelberg (1897–1994). He attended the well-known Eranos conferences led by Jung and was a colleague of his. Spiegelberg was very much a bridge between Eranos of Ascona in Switzerland, and the Esalen Institute of Big Sur in California—two countercultural foundations that have profoundly shaped how comparative spirituality and psychology are understood today.[[25]] What that understanding fails to recognize is that it is not enough to simply acknowledge the esoteric dimension underlying all the world’s religions—what is required is to live their saving truths according to an authentic revealed tradition.

Jung’s attitude to the human psyche is essentially anti-metaphysical and antagonistic to spiritual traditions. This is because it embraces empirical approaches to perceived phenomena as they pertain to our individual and collective experiences, without discerning what transcends the psycho-physical order. The relativism of Jungian epistemology is falsely absolutized by what he calls “psychic facts,”[[26]] which he presents as devoid of any transcendent criteria (which he informs us cannot be empirically verified within the limitations of modern scientific methodologies, as if this were a valid objection to the existence of intuited sacred realities of an ontological order). He says, “I am content with what can be experienced psychically, and reject the metaphysical.”[[27]] Jung declared that “Gnosis is undoubtedly a psychological knowledge whose contents derive from the unconscious.”[[28]] Although true gnosis, like any form of transcendent knowledge, has access to the psychic realm, it is not limited to this lower order of reality, given its transpersonal nature. We must therefore remain vigilant in the face of counterfeit gnosis—“knowledge falsely so called” (1 Timothy 6:20).

Jung not only borrows heavily from, but has altogether adopted, the modern philosophy of Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), which questions our ability to directly know the Absolute, in effect ignoring its presence within our innermost being. Indeed, Jung readily admits that his theoretical trajectory is unequivocally a “Kantian epistemology expressed in everyday psychological language”[[29]] and he claims that “I take my stand on Kant.”[[30]] Curiously, while doing so, he appears to have exceeded Kant’s epistemic limits.

Kant differentiates the noumenon (or the “thing in itself”)—which is transcendent and exists independently of the senses and is therefore inaccessible to them—from the phenomenon, the psycho-physical realm which can be apprehended empirically. This anti-metaphysical outlook deliberately ignores the immanent reality of the spiritual presence in being. Jung remarks: “It is unprofitable to speculate about things we cannot know. I therefore refrain from making assertions that go beyond the bounds of science.”[[31]] Contrary to his avowed approach, Jung often privileges his own way of knowing which clearly transgresses the very bounds he mentions:

The existence of a transcendental reality is indeed evident in itself…. That the world inside and outside ourselves rests on a transcendental background is as certain as our own existence, but it is equally certain that the direct perception of the archetypal world inside us is just as doubtfully correct as that of the physical world outside us.[[32]]

Jungian epistemology falsely absolutizes the psychic realm, as, for example, when he speaks of “‘unconscious’ knowledge which I would prefer to call ‘absolute knowledge.’”[[33]] He also falsely equates spiritually metaphysical archetypes to images of the unconscious, thereby misconceiving the reality of absolute truth: “The ultimate truth concerning metaphysical things … means nothing more than that archetypal images have taken possession of our powers of thought and feeling, so that these lose their quality as functions at our disposal.”[[34]] Yet each of the spiritual traditions teaches the necessity of liberating knowledge: “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32).

Kant failed to see that human beings (as taught by the great spiritual traditions of the world) participate in a transpersonal dimension able to know the essence of things in themselves. This has led, ever since, to a confusion between the ‘Intellect’ (a term which, in traditional metaphysics, refers to the faculty of spiritual discernment) and conventional reason. This influence on Jung is evident in his references to“mere intellect”[[35]] and in assertions such as “there is, in a certain sense, nothing that is directly experienced except the mind itself. Everything is mediated through the mind, translated, filtered, allegorized, twisted, even falsified by it.”[[36]]

Jung’s conflation of the horizontal and vertical dimensions becomes clear in the claim that “the only form of existence of which we have immediate knowledge is psychic.”[[37]]His privileging of the intermediary realm of the soul over the Spirit, to which it is subservient, is evident in his reference to “Man’s greatest instrument, his psyche.”[[38]] To understand why it is so difficult to decipher the terms that Jung uses, one needs to look no further than the following observation by him: “That threshold which separates two epochs [the premodern or traditional from the modern] plays the principal role. I mean by that threshold the theory of knowledge whose starting-point is Kant. On that threshold minds go their separate ways: those that have understood Kant, and the others that cannot follow him.”[[39]] This shows precisely Jung’s deviation from the epistemological insights of ancient philosophy and the religious traditions of mankind on this crucial point.

The “eye of the heart” or the true Intellect, which Kant denies, is an immanent faculty of direct spiritual perception that can know Reality unmediated. According to the spiritual traditions, “the intellect ... can know all that is knowable.”[[40]] That the “heart-intellect” is the center of the human psyche is taught by Meister Eckhart (1260–1328): “There is something in the soul that is uncreated and uncreatable ... [and] this is the intellect.”[[41]] Maimonides (1138–1204) recognizes the noetic faculty of the Intellect when he states: “God is the intellectus.”[[42]] Rūmī (1207–1273) also affirms that “the Universal Intellect is the founder of every thing.”[[43]] We recall the Prophet Muhammad’s words: “The first thing that God created was the Intellect” or “The first thing God created was the Spirit.” This conveys that the Intellect (‘Aql) and the Spirit (Rūḥ) refer ultimately to the same reality. In Hinduism and Buddhism, the Spirit or Intellect is known by the Sanskrit term Buddhi. With the traditional understanding of Intellect taken into consideration, we find in Jung a confused understanding of this transcendent faculty. He states: “The intellect does indeed do harm to the soul when it dares to possess itself of the heritage of the spirit.”[[44]] Jung writes “Psychology is concerned with the act of seeing,”[[45]] yet he failed to see that without an understanding of the “eye of the heart,” our vision is occluded.

It becomes clear why Jung denies the existence of the Intellect as a faculty that apprehends spiritual reality. For him, the world’s religious traditions are “pre-Kantian,” and therefore (according to his logic) naïve and outmoded. He writes:

Let us take as an example the believing person…. He lives in the same world as me and appears to be a human being like me. But when I express doubts about the absolute validity of his statements, he expostulates that he is the happy possessor of a ‘receiver,’ an organ by means of which he can know or tune in the Transcendent. This information obliges me to reflect on myself and ask myself whether I also possess a like receiver which can make the Transcendent, i.e., something that transcends consciousness and is by definition unknowable, knowable. But I find in myself nothing of the sort. I find I am incapable of knowing the infinite and eternal or paradoxical; it is beyond my powers.[[46]]

Jung is quite right in this assessment. If he is relying on the epistemology of modern philosophy, that has divorced itself from first principles, then there is no way to know ultimate reality.

In denying the spiritual reality of the ‘self’, Jung cannot be defended as simply adopting an apophatic perspective of Divine unknowability (a via negativa, as opposed to a more positive “cataphatic” theological understanding), which is a mystical approach that attempts to realize the Divine by distinguishing it from all It is not. For example, the eighth-century sage Shankara points out: “Whenever we deny something unreal, we do so with reference to something real.”[[47]] These are metaphysical affirmations of the Absolute by acknowledging that its reality is not limited to the psychic realm. To the extent that Jung does indeed confine himself to such a limitation, his conclusions are flawed. The Absolute can be apprehended in myriad ways, not limited to the psychic phenomena by which we can know transcendent reality with certitude, and the saints and sages of the past have attested to this.

Another important key to understanding Jung’s epistemology is the role of his psychic intermediary, Philemon. We are told that it was the Biblical Prophet Elijah who transformed into Philemon, an inner guide who would teach Jung about the mysteries of the unconscious. Jung describes Philemon as a “pagan [who] brought with him an Egypto-Hellenistic atmosphere with a Gnostic coloration.”[[48]] Jung divulges the inspiration underlying his entire psychology as “a movement of the spirit which took possession of me and which I have had the privilege of serving all my life.”[[49]]

The encounter taught him about the psyche’s autonomy for “Philemon and the other figures of my fantasies brought home to me the crucial insight that there are things in the psyche which I do not produce, but which produce themselves and have their own life.”[[50]] Jung adds, “It was he who taught me psychic objectivity, the reality of the psyche.”[[51]] Philemon became Jung’s psychagogue as he indicates: “Psychologically, Philemon represented superior insight … to me he was ... a guru.”[[52]]

Jung makes a stunning admission about one of the most important currents of modern Western psychology; initially, this was only known to his inner circle and not made public until many years after his death in the Red Book. It is worth mentioning that the actual title of the Red Book is Liber Novus, from the Latin meaning “The New Book” which intentionally aligns with the title of the biblical New Testament. In the same way that this canonical text did for its time, Jung imagined that his Liber Novus would bring a new message—dare we say revelation—to the modern world. This work was written between 1914 and 1930, and only published in 2009 with the permission of his family. Jung here pronounces, for the first time, the source of his analytic psychology:

The years, of which I have spoken to you, when I pursued the inner images, were the most important time of my life. Everything else is to be derived from this. It began at that time, and the later details hardly matter anymore. My entire life consisted in elaborating what had burst forth from the unconscious and flooded me like an enigmatic stream and threatened to break me. That was the stuff and material for more than only one life. Everything later was merely the outer classification, the scientific elaboration, and the integration into life. But the numinous beginning, which contained everything, was then.[[53]]

Jung gives us an important clue about his role in the Red Book: “The task is to give birth to the old in a new time.”[[54]] Jung differentiates what he terms the “spirit of the time” from the “spirit of the depths.” The first is concerned with the world as it appears in the present, and Jung admits to being influenced by this until he realized its inadequacy. Following this, Jung was then drawn to give voice to the “spirit of the depths,” which he describes as possessing “from time immemorial and for all the future ... a greater power than the spirit of this time.”[[55]] Jung tells us that this line of inquiry “took away my belief in science.”[[56]] However, it is only through sacred tradition that we can reconcile the temporal with the Eternal. While we must live through the times in which we find ourselves, it is by means of the timeless wisdom disclosed in humanity’s religious traditions that true wholeness can be realized.

The Rise of Psychology in Times of Spiritual Crisis

At the heart of the modern world’s spiritual crisis are the errors of the Enlightenment project, which brought about the reductionist and desacralized worldview of the present day. The secular Weltanschauung that ensued affected all contemporary life, including the religions themselves. Jung, like many others, could see the spiritual malaise from the vacuum left by modernism and asserted that people today were largely incapable of believing in God (unlike in earlier eras) because they now relied on ways of knowing based, for the most part, on reason and empirical verification. He declared: “Our age wants to experience the psyche for itself”[[57]] as “modern man … turns his attention to the psyche … without reference to any traditional creed.”[[58]] Jung went on to explain why the modern mind has turned its back on the spiritual traditions and their integrative ways of knowing: “Modern man abhors faith and the religions based upon it. He holds them valid only so far as their knowledge-content seems to accord with his own experience of the psychic background. He wants to know—to experience for himself.”[[59]]

Jung declared that “the mass man of today … is … post-Christian,”[[60]] and that, while human beings were unable to maintain belief in a transcendent God, they nevertheless sought a direct experience of spiritual reality. But rather than situating the divine above the flux and impermanence of this world, in the Spirit, Jung placed it within the psyche, the ‘intermediary’ realm of the human soul, with all its chaotic vicissitudes.

The weakening of the faith, especially in the modern West, not only marginalized but obscured a deeper understanding of religion. What Jung appears to have overlooked is that each of the world’s great religions comprises both an outer and inner dimension; this is what ensures their proper health and integrity.

Jung deserves credit for criticizing the scientistic outlook of his time. He courageously declared: “I shall not commit the fashionable stupidity of regarding everything that I cannot explain as a fraud.”[[61]] Early in his career, his captivating, yet controversial, lectures called “The Border Zones of Exact Science” (1896) and “Thoughts on the Nature and Value of Speculative Inquiry” (1898), challenged the materialistic assumptions of the discipline at that time.[[62]]He proclaimed that scientistic interpretations were a “bastard of a science.”[[63]]

At the time, this was a difficult position to hold in public, as theories that alluded to a reality that surpassed human reason and the empirical order were vigorously rejected by the developing discipline of psychology, which was struggling to establish itself as a bona fide science. Jung also recognized (as did Freud) the need to present psychology within a scientific framework in order to encourage its wider acceptance: “Today the voice of one crying in the wilderness must necessarily strike a scientific tone if the ear of the multitude is to be reached.”[[64]] We are better able to understand these pressures when Jung adds:

My temperamental empiricism has its reasons.... My audience then was a thoroughly materialistic crowd, and I would have defeated my own ends if I had set out with a definite creed or with definite metaphysical assertions. I was not and I did not want to be anything else but one of them.... [Therefore,] I have tried to accommodate myself to the psychiatric and medical mind.[[65]]

The weakening of the faith, especially in the modern West, not only marginalized but obscured a deeper understanding of religion. What Jung appears to have overlooked is that each of the world’s great religions comprises both an outer and inner dimension; this is what ensures their proper health and integrity. The weakening of religion in the modern world has contributed to the confusion which has brought about the notion, often heard today, of being “spiritual but not religious” (‘SBNR’, according to the new moniker). This, again, is to misunderstand what true religion is and to neglect the esoteric or mystical dimension that can only be fully accessed through the ‘protective’ forms of exoteric religion. Yet, despite certain shortcomings in Jung’s grasp of the religious phenomenon, we need to acknowledge his understanding of our need for the sacred, as for example in the following:

Freud has unfortunately overlooked the fact that man has never yet been able single-handed to hold his own against the powers of darkness—that is, of the unconscious. Man has always stood in need of the spiritual help which each individual’s own religion held out to him…. Man is never helped in his suffering by what he thinks for himself, but only by revelations of a wisdom greater than his own.[[66]]

Jung understood the far-reaching psychological consequences of modern man’s loss of faith on the scale that we find in the West today. He was the son of a Protestant minister who, in turn, also came from a family of clergy, which allowed him to perceive the vital role that religion plays in one’s life and the community. Jung’s attitude, in this regard, differed from Freud’s as he speculated that there was a spiritual impulse or what he called a “religious instinct”[[67]] within everyone. Freud’s extreme contempt for religion—which he considered akin to mental illness—can be seen in such remarks as: “Religion would thus be the universal obsessional neurosis of humanity.”[[68]]

Yet Jung also held some unfavorable views about religion, believing they required a “submission to the irrational facts of experience.”[[69]] Although his assessment was undoubtedly more positive than Freud’s, he himself did not belong to a particular faith. It appears that Jung, being of a largely rationalistic bent, saw himself as being beyond religion. He identified Freud as the dismantler of tradition and asked: “How fares it with men and women who have been uprooted and torn out of their tradition?”[[70]] Yet Jung, too, was very much aware of his own anti-traditional mission in this regard.

Like Freud, Jung asserted that only religion could fulfill the human need for the sacred. In a most revealing letter to Freud from 1910, he writes: “Religion can be replaced only by religion.”[[71]] Although he was ultimately persuaded, Freud initially appeared to be uncomfortable and put off by Jung’s ‘religious’ zealotry: “But you mustn’t regard me as the founder of a religion. My intentions are not so far-reaching.... I am not thinking of a substitute for religion; this need must be sublimated.”[[72]]

Unlike Freud, Jung is often thought to be sympathetic to the religious perspective; yet, no less than Freud, he promoted modern psychology as a secular pseudo-religion. Many commentators have noted this. Philip Sherrard (1922–1995) observed: “[Jungian] psychology is virtually a new religion.”[[73]] Sándor Ferenczi (1873–1933) reported to the Swiss physician Alphonse Maeder (1882–1971) that, in America, Jung had declared: “ΨA [psychoanalysis] is not a science but a religion.”[[74]] We recall the insightful comment by Martin Buber (1878–1965) that Jung was erecting a new “religion of pure psychic immanence.”[[75]] Jung himself stated: “Man’s relation to God ... has to undergo a certain important change: Instead of the propitiating praise to an unpredictable king [a transcendent God] ... the ... fulfilling of the divine will in us will be our form of worship.”[[76]] 

While Freud exemplifies anti-tradition, Jung represents counter-religion as a means to supplant all revealed spiritual traditions. Frithjof Schuon (1907–1998) noted the following in a trenchant summary:

People generally see in Jungism, as compared with Freudism, a step towards reconciliation with the traditional spiritualities, but this is in no wise the case. From this point of view, the only difference is that, whereas Freud boasted of being an irreconcilable enemy of religion, Jung sympathizes with it while emptying it of its contents, which he replaces by collective psychism, that is to say by something infra-intellectual and therefore anti-spiritual.[[77]]

With the gradual debasement of religion in the post-Enlightenment world, Jung saw that human beings required religion, and that this was the unique predicament of those living in the modern world. But Jung was arguably even more eager than Freud to promote modern psychology to usurp the place of religion:

I imagine a far finer and more comprehensive task for ΨA [psychoanalysis] than alliance with an ethical fraternity. I think we must give it time to infiltrate into people from many centres to revivify among intellectuals a feeling for symbol and myth, ever so gently to transform Christ back into the soothsaying god of the vine, which he was, and in this way absorb those ecstatic instinctual forces of Christianity for the one purpose of making the cult and the sacred myth what they once were—a drunken feast of joy where man regained the ethos and holiness of an animal. That was the beauty and purpose of classical religion.[[78]]

If true religion could be replaced with psychology, then psychology could be made to perform what was once the function of religion. Jung saw that “The religious point of view always expresses and formulates the essential psychological attitude and its specific prejudices.”[[79]]

The marginalization of faith in the modern world has given rise to the notion of psychological man (homo psychologicus). Jung explained this development as follows:

The modern man has lost all the metaphysical certainties of his mediæval brother.... Science has destroyed even the refuge of the inner life.... This “psychological” interest of the present time shows that man expects something from psychic life which he has not received from the outer world: something which our religions, doubtless, ought to contain, but no longer do contain—at least for the modern man. The various forms of religion no longer appear to the modern man to come from within—to be expressions of his own psychic life; for him they are to be classed with the things of the outer world. He is vouchsafed no revelation of a spirit that is not of this world; but he tries on a number of religions and convictions as if they were Sunday attire, only to lay them aside again like worn-out clothes.[[80]] 

The contemporary world relegated myth to the realm of fiction, as only what could be known by reason and empirical investigation was believed to truly exist. In its defense, Jung asserted that “myth is not fiction: it consists of facts that are continually repeated and can be observed over and over again.”[[81]] Yet we need to tread with caution here because, for Jung, what is continually repeated and observable pertains to the psychic realm and not the metaphysical. He even went as far as to equate myth with the spiritual order: “No science will ever replace myth, and a myth cannot be made out of any science. For it is not that ‘God’ is a myth, but that myth is the revelation of a divine life in man. It is not we who invent myth, rather it speaks to us as a Word of God.”[[82]]

Jung confuses matters when referring to “God,” because he evidently does so to indicate a product of the human psyche, rather than to affirm the reality of the Spirit. He therefore called for a new myth (or rather a “counter-myth”) but this, again, is to misunderstand the true meaning of the term “myth” as a metaphysical (rather than psychological) archetype. Coomaraswamy explains: “The Myth [is] the penultimate truth, of which all experience is the temporal reflection. The mythical narrative is of timeless and placeless validity, true now, ever and everywhere.... Myth embodies the nearest approach to absolute truth that can be stated in words.”[[83]] The limits of modern science and its secular psychology are plain to see in their failure to grasp the full symbolic significance of myths. Frithjof Schuon states:

Modern science … can neither add nor subtract anything in respect of the total truth or of mythological or other symbolism or in respect of the principles and experiences of the spiritual life…. We cannot be too wary of all these attempts to reduce the values vehicled by tradition to the level of phenomena supposed to be scientifically controllable. The spirit escapes the hold of profane science in an absolute fashion.[[84]]

The Jungian approach makes use of diverse symbolism, more so than arguably any other form of modern psychology. Thus Jung observes, “we are all badly in need of the symbolic life. Only the symbolic life can express the need of the soul.”[[85]] The problem he fails to focus on is that the human psyche is incapable of independent awareness, though it might delude itself that it is. This is the pathology of the psyche’s occluding tendency to usurp the role of the Spirit which is the true source of its illumination. From a traditional viewpoint of the hierarchy of Spirit-psyche-body, the psyche cannot even discern the intermediary realm of its own being, the soul, on its own, for it requires access to the spiritual realm in order to attain self-knowledge, to be properly guided, and to ultimately heal itself. The higher realm of the Real can only be known symbolically by the intermediary. We recall the discerning words of René Guénon (1886–1951): “symbolism … can only be linked to the ‘superconscious,’”[[86]] meaning that the origin of the symbolic order is to be found in the spiritual realm; the latter is assuredly not the subject of psychopathology. Seyyed Hossein Nasr elaborates on the transpersonal nature of symbolism and its connection to archetypes:

Symbols are ontological aspects of a thing … as real as the thing itself, and in fact that which bestows significance upon a thing within the universal order of existence … symbols reflect in the formal order archetypes belonging to the principial realm … through symbols the symbolized is unified with its archetypal reality.[[87]]

Without the principial order illumining the psyche through the archetypes, the true function of symbolism is misunderstood, and the connection between appearances and their essences is obscured. This is a fundamental problem that analytic psychology ignores. Jung’s error on this point is evidenced in this statement which shows his conflation of the archetypes with simply mental processes: “The symbolic concepts of all religions are recreations of unconscious processes in a typical, universally binding form.”[[88]] It is no surprise then that Jung’s ‘psychotherapy’ ranges no further than addressing those processes.

Jung suggests that “every psychological theory [is] in the first instance ... subjective confession.”[[89]] He also draws on parallels between this and contemporary psychotherapy:

The first beginnings of all analytical treatment are to be found in its prototype, the confessional. Since, however, the two practices have no direct causal connection, but rather grow from a common psychic root, it is difficult for an outsider to see at once the relation between the groundwork of psychoanalysis and the religious institution of the confessional.[[90]]

He continues:

The confession of her sinful thoughts may have given considerable relief to the patient. But it seems unlikely that the cure can be ascribed entirely to their verbal expression or to the “abreaction.” Pathological ideas can be definitely submerged only by a strong effort. People with obsessions and compulsions are weak; they are unable to keep their ideas in check. Treatment to increase their energy is therefore best for them. The best energy-cure, however, is to force the patients, with a certain ruthlessness, to unearth and expose to the light the images that consciousness finds intolerable. Not only is this a severe challenge for the patient’s energy but also his consciousness begins to accept the existence of ideas hitherto repressed.[[91]]

The ‘religious’ (in effect, pseudo-religious) function of Jungian psychology is noted by American clinical psychologist and historian of medicine Richard Noll:

For literally tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of individuals in our culture, Jung and his ideas are the basis of a personal religion that either supplants their participation in traditional organized Judaeo-Christian religion or accompanies it. For this latter group especially, the Jungian experience, as it is promoted by its specialized caste of analysts, holds out the promise of mystery and the direct experience of the transcendent that they do not experience in any church or synagogue.[[92]]

The emergence of modern psychology was, wittingly or not, a clear attack on the ethical norms of traditional religions. Jung explicitly tells us that “Psychoanalysis stands outside traditional morality.”[[93]] Jung was aware of this dilemma and attributed the decline of morality due to the loss of a sense of the sacred: “Man … feels in his heart the instability of present-day morality, no longer supported by living religious conviction. Here is the source of most of our ethical conflicts. The urge to freedom beats upon the weakening barriers of morality.”[[94]] Ironically, it was Jung’s own inability to link his theory to the traditional foundations of religion that was contributing to this malaise.

Jung’s description of neurosis, in the form of nervous disorders, appears as a psychological reworking of the doctrine of sin, but without explaining the ontological error of sin;[[95]] he writes that neuroses “consist primarily in an alienation from one’s instincts, a splitting off of consciousness from certain basic facts of the psyche.”[[96]] Though Jung can state, “Modern man lives in sin”,[[97]] he fails to attribute sin to the loss of the sense of the sacred. The deviation that is the modern world exists because of the desacralized outlook that dominates our epoch. Jung instead claims that “sin has … become something quite relative: what is evil for the one, is good for the other.”[[98]]

Jung’s thought was itself a deviation from traditional metaphysics. He argued that sacred tradition was just another means to manipulate people, and he denied its connection to transcendent principles: “The hypnotic power of tradition still holds us in thrall, and out of cowardice and thoughtlessness the herd goes trudging along the same old path.”[[99]] It hardly needs to be said that the opposite, in fact, is true. Jung failed to see that the sacred tradition is linked to the metaphysical order, and is not a man-made phenomenon. By absolutizing the human psyche, Jung relativized its subjectivity, thereby undermining the Spirit, the transcendent reality at the heart of all religions. As Sherrard noted, Jung did indeed

...wish to undermine the traditional basis of religious dogma, as well as of all theological thought of the traditional kind…. So long as the great structure of Christian doctrine and dogma, regarded as sacred and inviolate, stood in the way, his own ideas could make little progress. But if he could show that this structure shared in all the necessary limitations of human thought as he conceived them and was in fact essentially subjective and relative and psychic, its authority would be shaken.[[100]]

Jung repeatedly denied charges that he was aiming to set up his own religion (or counter-religion) to replace sacred tradition. Yet, if we read between the lines, we can see that he clearly was. Due to the scientistic outlook of his day, and his need to appear as “a man of science,” he was inclined to downplay a “religious” agenda. He writes:

If you have formed the peculiar notion that I am proclaiming a religion, this is due to your ignorance of psychotherapeutic methods. When for instance the heart no longer functions as it has always functioned, it is sick, and the same goes for the psyche, whose functioning depends on archetypes (instincts, patterns of behaviour, etc.). The doctor sees to it that the heart gets into its old rhythm again, and the psychotherapist must restore the “original pattern,” the original ways in which the psyche reacts. This is done, today as several thousand years ago, through the “anamnesis” of the archetype. I can’t help it that religions also work with archetypes.[[101]]

For Jung, the “original pattern” was not linked to the self-awareness of the transpersonal Intellect (as in the case of Platonic “anamnesis”) but to the psyche. On various occasions, he makes statements such as this: “I make no metaphysical assertions. My standpoint is purely empirical and deals with the psychology of such assertions.”[[102]] At the same time, he asserts the opposite: “There is a mystical fool in me that proved to be stronger than all my science.”[[103]]As this essay aims to show, Jung’s claim to be merely a psychologist or empiricist is far from being entirely accurate.

Not only did Jung acknowledge the therapeutic value of religion, he also spoke of “the great psychotherapeutic systems which we know as the religions.”[[104]] He asks, “What are we doing, we psychotherapists?”[[105]] and responds, “We are trying to heal the suffering of the human mind, of the human psyche or the human soul, and religions deal with the same problem.”[[106]] He adds, “Therefore our Lord himself is a healer; he is a doctor; he heals the sick and he deals with the troubles of the soul; and that is exactly what we call psychotherapy.”[[107]]

Although psychotherapy has a therapeutic value, its real worth can be seen only when we discern a connection to that which is higher than the discipline itself. Again, it is the spiritual dimension alone that can properly restore the human soul to health. The danger lies in the reduction of religion to the psychic realm; an aberration found not only in Jung, but throughout modern psychology.

Even though Jung rightly criticized Freud for pathologizing the sacred, he is evidently guilty of the same charge. In the following passage, Jung elaborates on his understanding of a “psychological” religion that is specifically addressed to those who have defected from their own faith traditions:

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 always 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 moulds of immediate experience.[[108]]

Regarding Jung’s relationship with the Christian tradition, it may surprise readers to know that, while he might at times appear a defender of religion, he also said to a disciple who had converted to Catholicism: “With me, nobody has his place who is in the Church. I am for those people who are out of the Church.”[[109]] Jung’s attacks on religion, like Freud’s, served to undermine traditional Catholicism during the 20th century. Remarking on Jung’s role in this regard, Charles Upton writes: 

Jung was exerting a powerful and destructive influence upon the Catholic Church which—having been all but abolished in its traditional form by the Second Vatican Council—was groping for some way to relate to its own rich mythopoetic heritage, so much so that Jungian psychology almost replaced the Church Fathers as the golden key to scriptural exegesis for Novus Ordo Catholics.[[110]]

Jung considered psychologically therapeutic “consciousness” as sufficient to replace the morality of the world’s faith traditions. For him, salvation is only possible for those who participate in the secular pseudo-religion of his psychology:

If we are conscious, morality no longer exists. If we are not conscious, we are still slaves, and we are accursed if we obey not the law. He [Jung] said that if we belong to the secret church, then we belong, and we need not worry about it, but can go our own way. If we do not belong, no amount of teaching or organization can bring us there.[[111]]

This may sound perplexing to those outside Jung’s inner circle, but it illustrates how his counter-tradition began to form. Jung saw analytical psychology as “the way to the religious experience that makes us whole. It is not this experience itself, nor does it bring it about.”[[112]] Again, here is Jung acknowledging that psychology can be put in the service of religion, which—while undoubtedly true—is a claim he then undermines when, elsewhere, he marginalizes the spiritual dimension in human life.  

The Sacred and Psychopathology

Jung recognized the destructive impacts of scientism, as in the following statement: “As scientific understanding has grown, so our world has become dehumanized.”[[113]] Jung in fact contributed to that dehumanization. While he distinguished his contribution from that of his predecessor, Freud, by claiming that “the main interest of my work is not concerned with the treatment of neuroses but rather with the approach to the numinous”[[114]], in fact he too conflated spiritual and psychopathologies.The following statement by Jung, reminiscent of his one-time master, makes more sense when situated in a traditional context:“The attitude of modern civilized man sometimes reminds me of a psychotic patient.”[[115]] Jung correctly recognized that the decline of the sacred had given rise to an increase in mental illness:

[S]ide by side with the decline of religious life, the neuroses grow noticeably more frequent…. We are living undeniably in a period of the greatest restlessness, nervous tension, confusion and disorientation of outlook…. [M]odern man has an ineradicable aversion for traditional opinions and inherited truths … religious truths have somehow or other grown empty.[[116]]

He adds: “Neurosis is intimately bound up with the problem of our time and really represents an unsuccessful attempt on the part of the individual to solve the general problem in his own person.”[[117]] Jung connects the individual neurosis to collective psychopathology:

We always find in the patient a conflict which at a certain point is connected with the great problems of society. Hence, when the analysis is pushed to this point, the apparently individual conflict of the patient is revealed as a universal conflict of his environment and epoch. Neurosis is thus nothing less than an individual attempt, however unsuccessful, to solve a universal problem…[[118]]

Despite making the link between mental illness and the loss of the sense of the sacred in the modern world, Jung simply pursued psychological solutions to those illnesses. Arguably, it is the modern world’s spiritual vacuum that catalyzes mental health problems, as he notes: “A psycho-neurosis must be understood as the suffering of a human being who has not discovered what life means for him.”[[119]] But for Jung, his treatment of this spiritual malaise is through addressing the psyche. He makes the following observation about the nature of psychopathology: “The neurotic is ill because he is unconscious of his problems”[[120]]and therefore “the … goal of the analysis … is to reach a state where the unconscious contents no longer remain unconscious.”[[121]]

Jung’s failure to address spiritual needs at their level is a major error.

Jung does not advocate a recovery of the sacred as a response to the rise in mental illness; rather, he promotes “salvation” through his own form of analytical psychology: “The neurotic is ill not because he has lost his old faith, but because he has not yet found a new form for his finest aspirations.”[[122]]

Jung’s failure to address spiritual needs at their level is a major error. In the case of mental illness, we need to acknowledge its possible origin in the patient’s spiritual pathology, that a profound mystery may be veiling itself in the guise of “madness.” It would be an overstatement to suggest that such malady is always a spiritual problem that can be cured through religion; but, it is important to consider that the loss of the sacred in the modern world (with all its deleterious ramifications) is inseparable from this enigma and that the loss of a spiritual “norm” is an aspect of the individual pathology of mental abnormality.

Prophet of the Underworld

Jung expressly disavowed a prophetic function, stating, “I do not wish to pass myself off as a prophet”[[123]] and he also publicly emphasized that he was against “false hero worship.”[[124]] However, both he and Freud clearly intended to assume such a role. Both considered themselves to be prophets and were certainly viewed as such by their closest disciples. Austrian-born psychiatrist A.A. Brill (1874–1948), who was an early evangelizer of the Freudian gospel of psychoanalysis in America, informs us that Freud and Jung were (sacrilegiously) referred to, respectively, as “Allah and his Prophet.”[[125]] Helen Walker Puner (1915–1989) relates the following:

Freud had persuaded himself that in Jung he had found the ideal temporal head of his new religion. If Jung would run the secular affairs of the church—take over the external organization and the regulation of psychoanalysis—then he, Freud, could concern himself exclusively with that which was nearest to his heart, the formulation of the dogma.[[126]]

Philip Rieff (1922–2006) observed about Jung that “He has supplied a parody of Christianity, stopping short at his own ‘Christification.’”[[127]] In fact, Jung tells us that “prophets, appear ... to give a new revelation, to give birth to a new truth,”[[128]] before finally admitting that “I thus became a prophet, since I had found pleasure in the primordial.”[[129]]

Austrian-born psychiatrist A.A. Brill (1874–1948), who was an early evangelizer of the Freudian gospel of psychoanalysis in America, informs us that Freud and Jung were (sacrilegiously) referred to, respectively, as “Allah and his Prophet.”

Jung was known to say that he was but a mere psychologist, and that he assiduously avoided the direct discussion of metaphysical or religious questions. Yet in a famous interview with English journalist Frederick Sands, Jung unabashedly declared his personal conviction in God: “All that I have learned has led me step by step to an unshakeable conviction of the existence of God. I only believe in what I know. And that eliminates believing. Therefore I do not take His existence on belief—I know that He exists.”[[130]] In a 1959 BBC TV interview, John Freeman asked Jung (who was eighty-four at the time) if he believed in God. Jung replied: “Difficult to answer. I know. I don’t need to believe.”[[131]]

But if he was convinced of God, equally, he saw his own role as His prophet. Jung believed that he had received a gift which confirmed his prophetic calling, when writing of the “immediate living God who stands, omnipotent and free, above His Bible and His Church.”[[132]] In a private conversation with Margaret Ostrowski-Sachs, Jung is reported to have admitted that, for years, he kept to himself the “secret knowledge” of his prophetic mission, before making it public:

Before my illness [in 1944] I had often asked myself if I were permitted to publish or even speak of my secret knowledge. I later set it all down in Aion. I realized it was my duty to communicate these thoughts, yet I doubted whether I was allowed to give expression to them. During my illness I received confirmation and I now knew that everything had meaning and that everything was perfect.[[133]]

As compelling as these statements may seem, we must inquire further and ask ourselves what they mean. It is difficult to decipher them completely because of the ambiguity inherent in Jung’s thought, whence the reductionism in his discussion of religious forms. Accordingly, there is good reason to suggest that his traditional understanding of God (as both transcendent and immanent reality) is subordinated to an occult phenomenon that pertains solely to the human psyche. Finally, we need to also consider the function of Philemon, a gnostic intermediary who initiated Jung into the mysteries of the unconscious; it may well be this inner guide who is making these occult claims about knowing the Divine, rather than Jung himself.

With this messianic function came the need to form an inner circle. Many might suppose that only Freud and his followers had formed a secret society, so to speak, but Jung too had a closed inner circle, as the historical record demonstrates. He informs us that “the Psychological Club in Zurich ... was founded in 1916”[[134]] and, according to Paul J. Stern (1921–1982), this marked the beginning of Jung’s cult: “The founding of the Jungian club meant the social embodiment of Jungian psychology, the genesis of a sect.”[[135]]In 1916, Fanny Bowditch Katz (1874–1967) recorded in her diary that “[Jungian] Analysis is a therapy, and a religion ... a going back of Christianity.”[[136]]

A close collaborator, Liliane Frey-Rohn (1901–1993), who began analysis with Jung in 1934, remarked: “It [Jung’s analytic psychology] was like a cult.”[[137]] Not unlike Freud, Jung, according to Jolande Jacobi (1890–1973)—a member of the Jungian inner circle—was convinced that for Jung “psychology was another religion.”[[138]] Christiana Morgan (1897–1967), lay analyst and research associate at Harvard’s Psychological Clinic, expressed her convictions about Jung in this way: “There is no question about the fact that he is the prophet.”[[139]] Jung’s views, according to Freud, represented “a new religio-ethical system.”[[140]] Freud strongly objected to Jung’s grandiose messianic tendencies, which he described as reflecting “a new message of salvation which is to begin a new epoch in psychoanalysis, in fact, reveal a new aspect of the universe for everything else.”[[141]]

Jung emphasized the need for a hidden association of disciples whose aim would be to awaken humanity and guide it according to the principles of this new secular psychological religion:

Here I am alluding to a problem that is far more significant than these few simple words would seem to suggest: mankind is, in essentials, psychologically still in a state of childhood—a stage that cannot be skipped. The vast majority needs authority, guidance, law. This fact cannot be overlooked. The Pauline overcoming of the law falls only to the man who knows how to put his soul in the place of conscience. Very few are capable of this (‘Many are called, but few are chosen’). And these few tread this path only from inner necessity, not to say suffering, for it is sharp as the edge of a razor.[[142]]

Henri F. Ellenberger (1905–1993) depicted the Jung Institute in Zurich in the following manner:

I do not know any place where one breathes the atmosphere of a “theosophical sect” more stifling than at the Jung Institute in Zurich—no other chapel where the master is more divinised or is becoming so. Many of the disciples of Jung openly devote themselves to astrology, to occultism and to divination with the aid of the Chinese oracle, the I Ching. It is often maintained that Jung has, apart from his official doctrine, an esoteric doctrine, following the example of the ancient philosophies, which he always denies.[[143]]

Viktor von Weizsäcker (1886–1957), a pioneer in psychosomatic medicine, makes the following comments regarding Jung and “the dissolution of religion” in the modern world:

C.G. Jung was the first to understand that psychoanalysis belonged in the sphere of religion, more accurately, to the dissolution of religion in our time. To him neurosis was a symptom of the man who loses his support in religion. Publicly he spoke about that only later, but once he said to me in conversation, “All neurotics seek the religious.” At first, he may have been under the sway of scientific psychology and the curiosity of the researcher in the history of religion. Later he was prevented from speaking more openly about it by old resentment against Christianity (he was the son of a parson) and probably also by tactical consideration—he was afraid of being identified with a superficial pastoral attitude.[[144]]

Jung wrote to Freud on August 11th, 1910, conveying the need for secrecy within the psychoanalytic movement:

And finally, ΨA [psychoanalysis] thrives only in a very tight enclave of like minds. Seclusion is like a warm rain. One should therefore barricade this territory against the ambitions of the public for a long time to come…. Moreover ΨA is too great a truth to be publicly acknowledged as yet. Generously adulterated extracts and thin dilutions of it should first be handed around. Also the necessary proof has not yet been furnished that it wasn’t you who discovered ΨA but Plato, Thomas Aquinas and Kant, with Kuno Fischer and Wundt thrown in. Then Hoche will be called to a chair of ΨA in Berlin and Aschaffenburg to one in Munich. Thereupon the Golden Age will dawn.[[145]]

After all, as Jung declared, not many could appreciate the innermost teachings of this new psychological religion with its parody of deification, namely, “individuation” or the healing of the psyche on its own terms: “Only a few are capable of individuating.”[[146]]

Ernest Jones (1879–1958) did not hesitate to criticize Jung and the zealotry he perceived in him. He once remarked to Freud: “Jung is going to save the world, another Christ (with certainly Anti-semitism combined).”[[147]] Freud responded to Jones’s letter as follows: “I thank you for your very just remarks about Jung.... In fact he behaves like a perfect fool, he seems to be Christ himself, and in the particular things he says there is always something of the ‘Lausbub’ [rascal].”[[148]]

We might add here that, just like Freud, Jung wanted his inner life to be kept secret. American sociologist and social critic Rieff suggests that this was because he did not want his messianic mission to be known publicly while he was alive: “Yet, he waited until he was beyond the reach of skeptical reviewers before he published the secret of his life: this burden of prophecy with which he had been charged from the time of his earliest remembered dream.”[[149]]

Although Jung went on to affirm his function as a prophet of the underworld, it is important to understand his crisis of faith in light of this role and how it influenced him. Following Jung’s break with Freud in 1913, he underwent a very difficult period in his life that some have referred to as his own initiatory process into the collective unconscious, from which he did not emerge, we are told, until sometime in 1919. It was during this time that the boundary between madness and sanity became blurred for him, which led to a psychotic episode and hospitalization. He describes this in his 1962 autobiography, Memories, Dreams, Reflections, as “a state of disorientation”[[150]] where he says that he was “menaced by a psychosis.”[[151]]

Prior to this period, Jung was already questioning his Christian faith, seeking a new mythic force to guide him. Jungian analyst Marie-Louise von Franz (1915–1998) observed: “In 1912 he came to the conclusion that he personally could not return to the medieval or original Christian myth and set his foot on the path of finding his own myth…”[[152]] To commit apostasy was no small matter for Jung, as he came from a devout Christian family, with his father and eight uncles having been pastors. Jung stated that “although I profess myself a Christian ... present-day Christianity is not the final truth.”[[153]]

In his autobiography, while Jung acknowledges the spiritual wasteland of modernity, he confesses to having lost his faith in Christianity, and admits to the difficulty in finding a substitute counter-myth:

But in what myth does man live nowadays? In the Christian myth, the answer might be. “Do you live in it?” I asked myself. To be honest, the answer was no. “For me, it is not what I live by.” “Then do we no longer have myth?” “No, evidently we no longer have any myth.” “But then what is your myth—the myth in which you do live?” At this point the dialogue with myself became uncomfortable, and I stopped thinking. I had reached a dead end.[[154]]

Jung writes, “I made every effort to force myself to take the required positive attitude to Christ. But I could never succeed in overcoming my secret distrust.”[[155]] His repudiation of Christianity occurred early on and came to a head when he was twelve years of age: “My entire youth can be understood in terms of this secret.”[[156]] What was this secret? He informs us of a vision he had when returning home from school: “God sits on His golden throne, high above the world—and from under the throne an enormous turd falls upon the sparkling new roof, shatters it, and breaks the walls of the cathedral asunder.”[[157]] This appears to have deeply affected Jung and he concluded from it that God is also responsible for evil in the world. He stated, “God could be something terrible. I had experienced a dark and terrible secret. It overshadowed my whole life.”[[158]]

With the abandonment of his faith in Christianity, Jung turned to the secular pseudo-religion he found in analytic psychology which, according to him, could alone provide redemption and salvation in a post-Christian world. Jung affirmed the saving truth of his new religion in the motto Magna est vis veritatis et praevalebit (“Great is the power of the truth and it will prevail”).[[159]]

Psychology as Pseudo-Initiation

“It is from the depths of our own psychic life that new spiritual forms will arise.”[[160]] This statement by Jung very much describes the overthrow of religion by analytical psychology, and the resulting pseudo-spiritual notions that emerged through his influence. Jung shares with us the subjective catalyst for his journey into the abyss: “Since I know nothing at all, I shall simply do whatever occurs to me. Thus I consciously submitted myself to the impulses of the unconscious.”[[161]] We are told that it is through a childhood dream that he received an “initiation into the realm of darkness.”[[162]]

For Jung, contemporary psychology filled the ontological and epistemological void created by the eclipse of religion in the modern world; in fact, he considered analytical psychology to be a valid form of initiation, comparable to initiatic processes in traditional religions:

The transformation of the unconscious that occurs under analysis makes it the natural analogue of the religious initiation ceremonies, which do, however, differ in principle from the natural process in that they forestall the natural course of development and substitute for the spontaneous production of symbols a deliberately selected set of symbols prescribed by tradition.[[163]]

He explicitly likens analysis to initiation: “when … being analyzed [they are] undergoing an ‘initiation process’”[[164]] and also in the following declaration: “The only ‘initiation process’ that is still alive and practiced today in the West is the analysis of the unconscious.”[[165]] Elsewhere, Jung claims that “the unconscious has in fact and in truth discovered the age-old, timeless way of initiation.”[[166]] He views catharsis, the cleansing process within the mystery religions to be the origin of modern psychoanalysis:

[A] saying from the Greek mysteries: “Give up what thou hast, and then thou wilt receive.”
We may well take this saying as a motto for the first age in psychotherapeutic treatment. It is a fact that the beginnings of psychoanalysis were fundamentally nothing else than the scientific rediscovery of an ancient truth; even the name catharsis (or cleansing), which was given to the earliest method of treatment, comes from the Greek initiation rites.[[167]]

The Deified Psyche

Jung was well aware of the potential conflation of religion and psychology and the dangers of heterodoxy. At times he professes the soul’s religious nature, but he never escapes his reductive conflation of transcendence and psychic subjectivity. At one point he declares: “I have been accused of ‘deifying the soul.’ Not I but God himself has deified it! I did not attribute a religious function to the soul, I merely produced the facts which prove that the soul is naturaliter religiosa [natively religious]; i.e., possesses a religious function.”[[168]] More concisely, “the soul possesses by nature a religious function.”[[169]] One reason why Jungian psychology is not always consistent is that concepts which are normally applicable to the metaphysical order appear, in his system, to be a manifestation of the psyche, rather than the principles which determine it. Thus, he claims, “Not only does the psyche exist, it is existence itself.”[[170]] Because Jung further asserts that “the psyche is a conscious-unconscious whole”,[[171]] he retains an ambiguity about the psyche in relation to the spiritual order. As a result, statements like the following are unexplained and retain the ambiguity: “Although there is no form of existence that is not mediated to us psychically and only psychically, it would hardly do to say that everything is merely psychic.”[[172]]

Jung informs us that “The psyche is the object of psychology, and—fatally enough—also its subject.”[[173]] While he asserts the notion of “psychic objectivity,”[[174]] we find, however, that we do not, in fact, possess this capacity within ourselves for such objectivity. When the human soul is not anchored in the transcendent, it cannot properly discern the true nature of its fluctuating thoughts or unstable states. Jung once asked: “By what criterion do we judge something to be an illusion? Does there exist for the psyche anything which we may call ‘illusion’? … the psyche does not trouble itself about … categories of reality…. It is highly probable that what we call illusion is actual for the psyche.”[[175]]

Jung is aware of the pitfalls of his reductive viewpoint. He points out that “[P]sychology is in the unfortunate position where the observer and the observed are ultimately identical. Psychology has no Archimedean point outside, since all perception is of a psychic nature.”[[176]] If the psyche is in a constant state of subjective flux, how can it know anything objective regarding the psychic plane itself? The very existence of this ‘psycho-physical’ domain draws its existence from the spiritual realm, on which it is entirely reliant for its ability to perceive and know the phenomenal world. This radical displacement of the human soul—as an intermediary realm, yet (in Jung’s version) cut off from the Transcendent—is not to be found in any of humanity’s established religions.

The confusion of the psychic with the spiritual consists of “two contrary forms: in the first, the spiritual is brought down to the level of the psychic ... in the second, the psychic is on the other hand mistaken for the spiritual.”[[177]] Erich Fromm (1900–1980) summarizes the predicament: “Jung reduces religion to a psychological phenomenon and at the same time elevates the unconscious to a religious phenomenon.”[[178]]

Transcendence entails immanence in a created world. So too, phenomena imply the foundation of the noumenon. We recall the memorable words of Eckhart, who said: “God create[d] the world ... [so] that God might be born in the soul.”[[179]] Likewise, Seneca (c. 4–65) says: “God is near you, he is with you, he is within you,”[[180]] and that “a holy spirit indwells within us.”[[181]] Clearly, the sustaining dependence of the soul on the Spirit refutes the notion that the human psyche is somehow autonomous; rather, the soul depends on the spiritual domain for its very being. In view of this dependence, Titus Burckhardt (1908–1984), has aptly observed “the psychic cannot be treated by the psychic.”[[182]] Just as the empirical ego or fragmented self cannot transcend or heal itself and needs a higher order of reality to intervene and bring about the healing equilibrium, the discipline cannot rely on the mind-force alone to heal, for it cannot know itself. Śrī Ramana Maharshi (1879–1950) puts it this way: “The mind cannot seek the mind.”[[183]]

Divine immanence is universally recognized in all spiritual teachings of a traditional nature: “The kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17:21);“I am the Self … seated in the heart of all beings”[[184]] (Bhagavad Gītā 10:20); and “Heaven and earth cannot contain Me, but the heart of My faithful servant containeth Me” (ḥadīth qudsī). This is based on a metaphysical discernment that transcendence is what makes possible access to the divine within oneself, and that this is not a realization limited to just the psychological level. Eckhart clarifies the distinction: “God alone is free and uncreated, and therefore he alone is like the soul with respect to being free, but not with respect to uncreatedness because the soul is created.”[[185]] Jung contradicts this when he writes:

It is only through the psyche that we can establish that God acts upon us, but we are unable to distinguish whether these actions emanate from God or from the unconscious ... the God-image does not coincide with the unconscious as such, but with a special content of it, namely the archetype of the self. It is this archetype from which we can no longer distinguish the God-image empirically.[[186]]

For Jung, God was not the transcendent absolute divinity, but the libido living within us: “If one honors God, the sun or fire, then one honors one’s own vital force, the libido.”[[187]] While Jung’s depiction of the libido is more nuanced than Freud’s—and although he goes further than his master in situating the doctrine of the “talking cure” beyond human sexuality—he still succumbs to reducing the spiritual domain to the libidinal level. Jung adds, subverting the metaphysical import of solar symbolism: “The sun is, as Renen remarked, really the only rational representation of God, whether we take the point of view of the barbarians of other ages or that of the modern physical sciences.... [T]he sun is adapted as is nothing else to represent the visible God of this world. That is to say, that driving strength of our own soul, which we call libido.”[[188]]

Jung repeatedly reduces metaphysical verities to the realm of the psyche.

Jung erroneously equates the psychic phenomenon with metaphysical reality, as, for example, he confirms here: “It is the soul which, by the divine creative power inherent in it, makes the metaphysical assertion; it posits the distinctions between metaphysical entities. Not only is it the condition of all metaphysical reality, it is that reality.”[[189]] At other times, he states that “the psyche is not a metaphysical concept but an empirical one.”[[190]] But, as Jung points out, all contemporary psychological systems that do not originate in the transpersonal order are relative and subjective in nature: “philosophical criticism has helped me to see that every psychology—my own included—has the character of a subjective confession….” Adding: “Even when I deal with empirical data I am necessarily speaking about myself.”[[191]]

Jung repeatedly reduces metaphysical verities to the realm of the psyche. For example, he writes: “Meister Eckhart’s view, therefore, is purely psychological,”[[192]] while adding “Only in Meister Eckhart did I feel the breath of life—not that I understood him.”[[193]] Regarding alchemy, Jung mistakenly attributes it to the psychological plane rather than seeing it as a method for spiritual transformation which also necessarily incorporates the intermediary realm of the human psyche. Alchemy, he states is “something resembling psychic processes expressed in pseudochemical language.”[[194]] It is not surprising, therefore, that Jung held the startlingly unorthodox view that “the concept [of the] ‘transcendent’ is relative.”[[195]] The fact that his theories were an impetus to bringing the spiritual dimension into modern Western psychology raises many red flags. Jung parted ways with Freud in that he recognized the spiritual domain as indispensable to our mental health; but he took the reductionistic trajectory of Freud to new heights—not only by psychologizing religion but also by his misguided attempt to ‘deify’ the psyche itself, affirming it as a quasi-absolute reality.

Originally, “archetypes” referred to transcendent ideas that comprised a purely intelligible realm which, at the same time, were also embodied in empirical forms. Although Jung viewed archetypes as supra-historical, he nonetheless situated them on a temporal level, thus sundering their connection to a higher order of reality. Burckhardt offers the following insight about Jungian and spiritual archetypes:

[F]or Jung, the ‘collective unconscious’ is situated ‘below’, at the level of physiological instincts. It is important to bear this in mind, since the term ‘collective unconscious’ in itself could carry a wider and in a fashion more spiritual meaning, as certain assimilations made by Jung seem to suggest, especially his use—or rather his usurpation—of the term ‘archetype’ to signify the latent, and as such inaccessible, contents of the ‘collective unconscious’ … the archetypes do not belong to the psychic realm, but to the world of pure Spirit.[[196]]

That Jung distorted the Platonic notion of archetypes is evident in the following statement: “[T]here are present in every psyche forms which are unconscious but nonetheless active—living dispositions, ideas in the Platonic sense, that pre-form and continually influence our thoughts and feelings and actions.”[[197]]

Ibn ‘Arabī (1165–1240), the Spanish‐born mystic known as “the Greatest Master” (al-Shaykh al-Akbar), distinguishes the “immutable entity” (‘ayn thābita) from the “existent entity” (‘ayn mawjūda). The former refers to the “nonexistent objects of God’s knowledge.”[[198]] They are ontologically real, but do not exist in the sensible world. The change and flux we observe in the manifested order do not pertain to what is immutable in God’s knowledge. By recovering a transpersonal vision (the “eye of the heart”) we can once again discern the “signs of God” (Latin: vestigia Dei; Arabic: āyāt Allāh) in the cosmos and within ourselves.

Much of Jung’s terminology generates confusion because he himself is confused, and so he defines terms in various ways according to different contexts. The archetypes are discussed in non-traditional ways, as if they were either images, unconscious forms without specific content, or as conscious contents of these forms. From where did Jung obtain his peculiar theory of the archetypes? He tells us, quite plainly, that it was an elaboration of his theory of the unconscious: “there developed from it [i.e. the unconscious] the theory of archetypes.”[[199]] Perhaps this is why he has said that “the archetype is not capable of being made conscious.”[[200]] Elsewhere, confusingly but to his credit, Jung avoids upholding a position of psychologism stating that “archetypes … have a nature that cannot with certainty be designated as psychic.”[[201]]

For the spiritual traditions of the world, the archetypes—like the human soul—originate in the Divine. The archetypes are transpersonal in essence; while they transcend the domain of the psyche, they also permeate it. To reduce them, through the distorted mirror of egoism, to mere horizontal contingencies is to subvert their spiritual significance. In the words of a metaphysician: “Archetypes are in reality crystalline essences and not their discarnate subaqueous gleamings as phantasmagoria peopling the sea of the subconscious psyche.”[[202]] There is no ambiguity about this. However, analytical psychology is mired in confusion. As Jung admits: “We simply do not know the ultimate derivation of the archetype any more than we know the origin of the psyche.”[[203]]

Jung was correct in stating that “the human psyche, be it sick or healthy, cannot be explained solely by reduction.”[[204]] “The psyche” he says “does not merely react, it gives its own specific answer to the influences at work upon it.”[[205]] This is not to suggest, however, that Jung was not also reductionistic in his outlook, or that he did not assert his own variation of psychologism; regarding which he writes: “Whoever speaks of the reality of the soul or psyche is accused of ‘psychologism.’”[[206]] However, this is not the form of psychologism under consideration here. What we are concerned with is the reduction of the Spirit to the psychic realm. Jung declares, “I firmly believe … that psyche is an οὐσίᾱ [ousia].”[[207]] Claiming that the human soul is an ousia, a substance or essence independent of anything else—including what is higher than itself—repudiates its reliance on the Spirit. He makes a similar point when he states: “I speak of esse in anima [being in the soul], the only form of being we can experience directly.”[[208]]

Jung further observes that “The psyche deserves to be taken as a phenomenon in its own right; there are no grounds at all for regarding it as a mere epiphenomenon.”[[209]] But he errs when suggesting that “The psyche is a self-regulating system.”[[210]] Jung’s statement captures the very predicament that afflicts modern psychology; namely, the limitations in seeing the human psyche as self-sufficient, existing just on its own level, cut off from the spiritual or ‘vertical’ dimension, which, in truth, can alone resolve the debilitating impasse of modern Western psychology. Jung’s error on this point is seen in the following passage:

All conceivable statements are made by the psyche…. The psyche cannot leap beyond itself. It cannot set up any absolute truths, for its own polarity determines the relativity of its statements…. In saying this we are not expressing a value judgment, but only pointing out that the limit is very frequently overstepped…. In my effort to depict the limitations of the psyche I do not mean to imply that only the psyche exists. It is merely that, so far as perception and cognition are concerned, we cannot see beyond the psyche…. All comprehension and all that is comprehended is in itself psychic, and to that extent we are hopelessly cooped up in an exclusively psychic world.[[211]]

Jung’s view contains an epistemological error by limiting cognition in a way that excludes the transpersonal Intellect, thereby entrapping the subject in an intermediary realm:

I do not imagine for a moment that I can stand above or beyond the psyche, so that it would be possible to judge it, as it were, from some transcendental Archimedean point ‘outside.’ I am fully aware that I am entrapped in the psyche and that I cannot do anything except describe the experiences that there befall me.[[212]]

Jung insists that “The psychic alone has immediate reality,”[[213]] and that “the psyche is indistinguishable from its manifestations.”[[214]] However, in traditional metaphysics, the soul is unable to know itself without having recourse to what is higher; and this requires access to the spiritual dimension. We are not our thoughts as such, but these can illuminate our inner world. Jung confuses things when he makes contrary assertions. His views are ambiguous precisely because he refers to the psychic as the spiritual, when the traditional understanding is clearly that the soul only exists by grace of the Spirit, and not the other way around.

Jung was convinced that he had discovered the archetypes of the collective unconscious, asserting that “the human psyche possesses a common substratum transcending all differences in culture and consciousness.”[[215]] He attempted to locate a universal and timeless wisdom, not in the spiritual domain but in the murky depths of the psyche. Although he intuited what he calls a “universal parallelism”[[216]] of analogous symbolisms and themes in mythologies across the cultures of the world, he evidently saw them as having their genesis in the intermediary realm, rather than in a transcendent order of reality. While the psyche—at its upper levels—certainly has contact with the Spirit, this cannot be said for its lower recesses.

Metaphysics and the Unconscious

A significant stumbling block for Jungian psychology is the confusion between the collective unconscious and the spiritual dimension. Although the human mind can inherit certain psychic forms, it does not mean that they are supra-individual. While these forms are collective, they are not necessarily purely spiritual in nature. To be sure, there is certainly a collective aspect to consciousness, but not in the way that Jung suggested, as Jungian theory lacks a proper ontological grounding (such as we find in the tripartite division of the human being, comprising Spirit, soul, and body). There is no common measure between the unconscious and metaphysics (the “Science of the Real”). Guénon remarked that “the appeal to the ‘subconscious’ [or unconscious], which marks the complete reversal of the normal hierarchy, brings us down in fact to the infra-human.”[[217]] Note the contrast with Jung, who stated: “We cannot tell whether God and the unconscious are two different entities.”[[218]]

The remedy for the ills of modernity, according to Jung, is as follows: “If we want to know what happens when the idea of God is no longer projected as an autonomous entity, this is the answer of the unconscious psyche.”[[219]] For Jungians, this understanding plays a paramount function in the process of individuation and the predicament of modernism.[[220]] Jung also tells us that “The image of wholeness then remains in the unconscious”[[221]] and that we “can achieve wholeness only through the soul.”[[222]] He claims that “the unconscious [is] the only available source of religious experience. This is certainly not to say that what we call the unconscious is identical with God or is set up in his place. It is simply the medium from which religious experience seems to flow.”[[223]]

Guénon remarked that “the appeal to the ‘subconscious’ [or unconscious], which marks the complete reversal of the normal hierarchy, brings us down in fact to the infra-human.”

Metaphysically speaking, wholeness cannot derive from what is a part, or a fragment, of what is whole. Jung commits the error of this inversion when he claims “Consciousness, no matter how extensive it may be, must always remain the smaller circle within the greater circle of the unconscious”[[224]] and, again, when he states that it is not primary: “Consciousness is phylogenetically and ontogenetically a secondary phenomenon.”[[225]] Presumably, what he means here is that it is ‘secondary’ only in relation to the subconscious, rather than to the Spirit.

Jung assures us that his orientation is purely empirical, and that his sole focus is on observable phenomena, thereby exposing his anti-metaphysical bias: “I eschew any metaphysical or philosophical considerations.”[[226]] Elsewhere he writes: “One cannot grasp anything metaphysically, one only can do so psychologically. Therefore I strip things of their metaphysical wrappings in order to make them objects of psychology.”[[227]]

Upon Jung’s return from a conference held at Clark University in September 1909, he had a dream that has become well known. He claimed that it gave him his initial ideas for the doctrine of the collective unconscious:

On my way back from America, I had a dream that was the origin of my book on the Psychology of the Unconscious[1912]. In those times I had no idea of the collective unconscious; I thought of the conscious as of a room above, with the unconscious as a cellar underneath and then the earth wellspring, that is, the body, sending up the instincts. These instincts tend to disagree with our conscious ideas and so we keep them down. That is the figure I had always used for myself, and then came this dream which I hope I can tell without being too personal. I dreamed I was in a medieval house, a big, complicated house with many rooms, passages, and stairways. I came in from the street and went down into a vaulted Gothic room, and from there into a cellar. I thought to myself that now I was at the bottom, but then I found a square hole. With a lantern in my hand I peeped down this hole, and saw stairs leading further down, and down these I climbed. They were dusty stairs, very much worn, and the air was sticky, the whole atmosphere very uncanny. I came to another cellar, this one of very ancient structure, perhaps Roman, and again there was a hole through which I could look down into a tomb filled with prehistoric pottery, bones, and skulls; as the dust was undisturbed, I thought I had made a great discovery. There I woke up.[[228]]

Every truly integrated psychology is, however, rooted in metaphysics, sacred science, and spiritual principles. Burckhardt explains this further as follows:

The connection with the metaphysical order provides spiritual psychology with qualitative criteria such as are wholly lacking in profane psychology, which studies only the dynamic character of phenomena of the psyche and their proximate causes. When modern psychology makes pretensions to a sort of science of the hidden contents of the soul it is still for all that restricted to an individual perspective because it has no real means for distinguishing psychic forms which translate universal realities from forms which appear symbolical but are only the vehicles for individual impulsions. Its “collective subconscious” has most assuredly nothing to do with the true source of symbols; at most it is a chaotic depositary of psychic residues somewhat like the mud of the ocean bed which retains traces of past epochs.[[229]]

In a reductionistic error, Jung introduced the term “unconscious metaphysics,” which he defined as “expressions of undifferentiated psychic activity which may often contain the germs of conscious thought.”[[230]] Jung, as well as his former master, determined the scope of metaphysics by psychological criteria alone: “Metaphysical assertions … are statements of the psyche, and are therefore psychological.”[[231]] Jung’s stated aim was “to relate so-called metaphysical concepts, which have lost their root connection with natural experience, to living, universal psychic processes, so that they can recover their true and original meaning.”[[232]] But, for him, metaphysics was purely psychological in nature, and accordingly he emphasized the impossibility of attaining metaphysical truth:

Psychology … treats all metaphysical … assertions as mental phenomena, and regards them as statements about the mind and its structure that derive ultimately from certain unconscious dispositions. It does not consider them to be absolutely valid or even capable of establishing a metaphysical truth…. Psychology therefore holds that the mind cannot establish or assert anything beyond itself.[[233]]

The fundamental distinction between the psychic and the spiritual appears to be completely overlooked by Jung, as here: “The unconscious is not just evil by nature, it is also the source of the highest good: not only dark but also light, not only bestial, semi-human, and demonic but superhuman, spiritual, and, in the classical sense of the word, ‘divine.’”[[234]]

‘Psychic’ versus ‘Transpersonal’ Self

Given the spiritual gap in its outlook, modern psychology has developed numerous theories to determine our authentic nature, yet, not surprisingly, it is unable to tell us what constitutes true identity. This is because who we really are lies beyond the relative and pathological modes of our everyday self. Jung flattens the vertical dimension, so to speak, by situating the somatic and spiritual unconscious on the same level. This process of ‘horizontalizing’ the Spirit, soul, and body—and its relationship to the self—is described by Jung in this way: “The self includes the somatic as well as the spiritual unconscious, being neither the one nor the other, but in between, in the psyche.”[[235]] Elsewhere, he asserts this point more directly: “the essence of man … is his psyche.”[[236]]

A related concern is the way Jung views human integration in his model: “It must be reckoned a psychic catastrophe when the ego is assimilated by the self.”[[237]] This goes against the spiritual traditions, which unanimously affirm the need for the empirical ego’s reintegration into the Divine—although Jung evades a precise definition of what he means by the “self.” He writes that “[al]though the self can become a symbolic content of consciousness, it is, as a supraordinate totality, necessarily transcendental as well.”[[238]] While Jung refers to the “transcendental,” we must be cautious not to assume that he is referring to an identity that transcends the psycho-physical order.

All of the world’s main religions teach that there is an inseparable link between the human and the Divine.This means that we must awaken or become reintegrated into our primordial nature (fiṭrah), the “image of God” (imago Dei), Buddha-nature (Buddha-dhātu),or Self (Ātmā)—our true identity in divinis. This traditional doctrine of identity is closely related to the conception one has of Reality itself. It is the metaphysical order that restores harmony to a consciousness that has been bifurcated into mind and matter, or subject and object.

In a dialogue with Zen philosopher Shin’ichi Hisamatsu (1889–1980), Jung responds: “The Self is more than the ego.”[[239]] He then adds that the “‘Self’ corresponds to Ātman or Puruṣa.”[[240]]Jung tells us that the Hindu concept of Ātmā forms, in his view, “an exact parallel to the psychological idea of the self.”[[241]] In his lectures on the Hindu tradition, he appears to be suggesting that his interpretation of the self is synonymous with the transpersonal Self (Ātmā):

Individuation is not that you become an ego—you would then become an individualist. You know, an individualist is a man who did not succeed in individuating; he is a philosophically distilled egotist. Individuation is becoming that thing which is not the ego, and that is very strange. Therefore nobody understands what the self is, because the self is just the thing which you are not, which is not the ego ... something exceedingly impersonal, exceedingly objective.[[242]]

Yet, elsewhere, the notion of the self (according to Jung) clearly does not pertain to a transpersonal order. Jung confirming that, in his understanding, “the self is no more than a psychological concept.”[[243]] He has also defined the self as the “God within us”[[244]] and, while the Divine is both transcendent and immanent, the traditional Hindu understanding of the transpersonal Self (Ātmā) is synonymous with the pure Spirit. What is the ‘self’ for Jung? He says that “the self, as its symbolism proves, embraces the bodily sphere as well as the psychic.”[[245]] This gives us a clue into his notion of the self and how he somehow misunderstands the psychic, or confuses it with the spiritual realm. Jung appears to be spiritualizing the psychic order, to fill a void created by an absence of the Spirit.

Notwithstanding certain allusions made by him to a transpersonal Self, wholeness, and a more expansive understanding of the human psyche, Jung remained restricted to a “horizontal” framework from which he was unable to extricate himself. His outlook, therefore, suffers no less from Cartesian bifurcation than does the discipline of modern psychology itself: “If there is no ego there is nobody to be conscious of anything”[[246]] and adds, “To us, consciousness is inconceivable without an ego … I cannot imagine a conscious mental state that does not relate to ... [the] ego.”[[247]]

Individuation versus Integrated Individuality

The goal of individuation as self-integration is central to Jungian psychology. According to Jung, many are called to individuate, but few succeed, echoing the scripture, “For many are called, but few are chosen” (Matthew 22:14). What exactly is individuation, and how does it operate? Jung says, “individuation is now our mythology…. It is a great mystery … we don’t know what it is...”[[248]] In another place, regarding this mysterious process of transformation, he states: “The great difficulty here … is that no one knows how the … wholeness of man can ever be realized.”[[249]] It is important to pay close attention to how Jung uses the term “individuation” which should not be confused with theosis. He writes: “Individuation means becoming a single, homogeneous being, and, in so far as ‘individuality’ embraces our innermost, last, and incomparable uniqueness, it also implies becoming one’s own self. We could therefore translate individuation as ‘come to selfhood’ or ‘self-realization.’”[[250]]

But the selfhood or self-realization that is proposed here is not as the integration within the True Self discussed in the spiritual traditions. As with many other concepts at his disposal, Jung uses expansive language to situate these terms on the uniformly psychic level. While Jung writes of “the process by which a person becomes a psychological ‘in-dividual,’ that is, a separate, indivisible unity or ‘whole’”,[[251]] the process of individuating is complex, and Jung has written extensively about it. The process, we are told, involves “integrating the unconscious … into consciousness.”[[252]]

The myopia of modern science, and its counterpart of psychology, have failed to overcome their erroneous theoretical foundations, and this has precluded a proper grasp of integral individuality. Jung’s understanding of the final goal of analytical psychology is a slippery slope, as are many other of his theories. Guénon reflects on the ineffectual nature of psychology when made devoid of a transpersonal dimension:

As for modern Western psychology, it deals only with a quite restricted portion of the human individuality, where the mental faculty is in direct relationship with the corporeal modality, and, given the methods it employs, it is incapable of going any further. In any case, the very objective which it sets before itself and which is exclusively the study of mental phenomena [the empirical ego], limits it strictly to the realm of the individuality, so that the state which we are now discussing [the Self (Ātmā)] necessarily eludes its investigations.[[253]]

Echoing traditional doctrines, Jung speaks of the “union of alchemical opposites,”[[254]] yet, rather than reintegrating the human being into the Divine, he proposes the opposite: “The individual must now consolidate himself by cutting himself off from God and becoming wholly himself.”[[255]] Jungian psychology believes that “the devil is a preliminary stage of individuation,”[[256]] and it clearly demonstrates how evil itself can be reduced to a psychological phenomenon, unrelated to the rupture of the self from the Spirit: “The devil is a variant of the ‘shadow’ archetype, i.e., of the dangerous aspect of the unrecognized dark half of the personality.”[[257]] Jung’s rendering of wholeness involves, as he tells us, the “integration of evil”[[258]] but he seems to have misunderstood St. Paul’s words: “I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me” (Romans 7:21). In other words, Jung appears to welcome these malefic forces, without fully discerning their dangers.

The culmination of Jung’s psychology in individuation is not synonymous with theosis. While he broaches the process of “becoming one with God,” we should not be surprised when he gives preponderance to the psychic over other considerations

Despite his focus on it, Jung still seems to doubt his own theory of individuation (along with its possibility): “In the end no one can completely outgrow his personal limitations; everyone is more or less imprisoned by them—especially when he practices psychology.”[[259]]A person who is captive to the empirical ego, and has not cultivated a sufficient level of self-domination, cannot navigate the psycho-spiritual labyrinth without a qualified guide; indeed, they can unwittingly deliver themselves over to the diabolical. St. Symeon the New Theologian (949–1022) writes: “Do not put yourself in the hands of an inexperienced master … for he will sooner initiate you into the diabolic life.”[[260]]In the Islamic tradition, there is the following Sufi adage: “He who has no shaykh, has Satan for his shaykh.”

We emphasize that the culmination of Jung’s psychology in individuation is not synonymous with theosis. While he broaches the process of “becoming one with God,”[[261]] we should not be surprised when he gives preponderance to the psychic over other considerations: “The identification with God necessarily has as a result the enhancing of the meaning and power of the individual.”[[262]] It is difficult not to equate individuation with its New Age counterfeits, as foreshadowed by the seductive promise made by the serpent in Genesis 3:5 – “ye shall be as gods.” Contrast this with the Patristic formula: “God became man that man might become God.”[[263]] Jung, on the other hand, appears to support an individualism divorced from sacred principles, and so he writes: “May each go his own way.”[[264]]

If we follow the path laid down by Jung and his counter-myth for the modern world, we are not likely to be comforted by the following disconcerting confession by him: “I live in my deepest hell, and from there I cannot fall any further.”[[265]] His full embrace of this inner darkness—even identification with it—is seen in another remark: “To journey to Hell means to become Hell oneself.”[[266]] According to Jung’s erroneous theory, by accepting what is lowest in ourselves—our fallen or saṃsāric condition—we can join what is above and below in order to heal and complete God.

We are reminded here of the Sabbatian-Frankist formula of “redemption through sin”[[267]] by means of an acceptance of evil and chaos, both within oneself and the outer world. This recalls the infamous maxim of the English occultist Aleister Crowley (1875–1947): “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.”[[268]] This is an inversion of what we find in St. Augustine (354–430): “Dilige [deum] et quod vis fac” or “Love [God], and do what thou wilt.”[[269]] It is not through the blind machinations of the empirical ego and its “shadow” that we come to realize the innermost truths of our being, but by seeking instead the guidance offered in the time-tested wisdom of humanity’s spiritual traditions.

The ‘dark side’ of our souls, which we fear to acknowledge, is often projected onto others, or the outer world, thus causing much suffering. Jung speaks about the “shadow” as if this was a novel idea of his own, previously unknown to traditional literature. This is evidently not the case, as each spiritual tradition has always provided an integrated “science of the soul” that requires purification, expansion, and integration. Jung writes: “One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious.”[[270]] We emphasize that what is crucial is that we cannot address the “shadow,” or the abyss of the human psyche, without relying on what is higher—a spiritual dimension to support our reintegration, healing, and wholeness in the Spirit.

Binary categories such as ‘light’ and ‘dark,’ ‘above’ and ‘below,’ ‘good’ and ‘evil,’ ‘male’ and ‘female’ cannot be unified on a purely psychic level, even though modern psychology acknowledges that there is a need to do so: “Bringing these opposites into union is one of the most important tasks of present-day psychotherapy.”[[271]] It is only a metaphysical perspective that allows us to overcome duality, including the world of appearances, through unification in the One, the supreme mystical realization of coincidentia oppositorum.This doctrine, common to all the faith traditions, is exemplified in the Heart Sūtra (Prajnāpāramitā-hṛdaya-sūtra): “form is emptiness … emptiness is form,”[[272]] which points to the essential identity of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa—akin to the Taoist notion of yin-yang, in which all of life’s divisions can be finally integrated.

It is also worth noting Jung’s unwillingness, when in India, to visit the Sage of Arunachala, Śrī Ramana Maharshi, one of the great spiritual figures of the 20th century. Some have suggested that, had he but made contact with someone of this stature, Jung may have been compelled to reconsider some of his theories, but this would have nullified his own program which was central to his own stature. Jung’s stated reason for not meeting the Maharshi was that “I doubt his uniqueness; he is of a type which always was and will be. Therefore it was not necessary to seek him out.... The man who is only wise and only holy interests me about as much as the skeleton of a rare saurian, which would not move me to tears.”[[273]]

Jung cautioned that his analytical psychology should not be viewed as a deviation from psychoanalysis, but simply as a continuation of Freud’s mission: “It has never been my purpose to criticize Freud…. I have been far more interested in the continuation of the road he tried to build…”[[274]] He went as far as to state: “Freudian theory goes much deeper, right into the glands, it is the most profound statement that can ever be made about human psychology.”[[275]] According to Peter Homans (1930–2009), “Jung’s psychology was, as ever, a corrective fulfillment of Freud’s.”[[276]] Although Jungianism appears to be more friendly to humanity’s wisdom traditions by including a spiritual dimension in psychology, in the end this semblance has proven to be more of a parody—one which does not fall far from the atheism of Freud’s “talking cure.”

As for the tendency to view Jung and Freud as modern prophets, we recall the following warning: “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves” (Matthew 7:15). Instead of advocating committing to a traditional religion and fulfilling its proper end—which is to realize ultimate reality or the Absolute—Jung sought only the unconscious: “My life is a story of the self-realization of the unconscious.”[[277]] In the end, it appears that Jung was pursuing what he calls “my personal myth.”[[278]] Needless to say, this has nothing to do with traversing an authentic spiritual path.

Those who question Jung’s ideas are dismissed by his adherents and are charged with not fully comprehending his theories, and yet even his inner circle, as he himself attests, did not understand him. The problem of ambiguity or, rather, contradiction in Jung’s thought is a very real one. Yet, by means of a more rigorous metaphysical critique, we can readily discern the shortcomings of his psychological system. At face value, Jung’s outlook appears to differ little from what we find in sacred tradition. However, Wolfgang Smith has offered the following astute observations about how the Jungian doctrine differs from true spirituality:

Jung has ransacked the religions and secret doctrines of the world to provide himself with an impressive pantheon of god-terms. But something is invariably lost in the process. At his touch, the ancient symbols forthwith lose their transcendental significations and acquire a truncated sense, the living God of Abraham ceases to be Creator of the universe and becomes simply a father-image, a mere sign standing for an archetype, which is itself no more than a particular content of the collective unconscious. One wonders whether this metamorphosis might not affect the saving efficacy of the religious symbol … what Jung is passing on to his sophisticated clientele is worlds removed from a religious orientation.[[279]]

Conclusion

Jung’s attack on traditional modes of knowing and healing, coupled with his repudiation of metaphysics, has had devastating consequences for the modern world. Due to the loss of a sense of the sacred, many teachers—if not false prophets—continue to “deceive the very elect” (Matthew 24:24), given that the “corruption of the best is the worst” (corruptio optimi pessima).For this reason, the following assessment holds up for not only Freud, but also for Jung:

“While nineteenth century materialism closed the mind of man to what is above him, twentieth century [modern Western] psychology opened it to what is below him.”[[280]]

In the final analysis, Jungian psychology does not provide a true “science of the soul” as is found in the diverse religious traditions of the world. In rejecting divine revelation, sacred tradition, and the necessity of grace in the spiritual life of humanity, it is difficult not to view Jung’s ideas as reductionist, antinomian, individualistic, and secular. The hollow ideas have lost sight of the metaphysical reality that both our liberation and psychic reintegration are reliant on a power beyond ourselves. As we are reminded, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8).

Jung pursued a profane path—one which sought to deify our psychic abyss. His assertion that the Spirit originates in the unconscious, does not withstand scrutiny in light of traditional wisdom. It is time to dispel the misconception that fathoming the unconscious, or attaining individuation, is somehow akin to the realization of our primordial nature or the true self. Jung’s deviations lead us into a cul-de-sac of the soul, devoid of any transcendence. Instead, it is only through a more profound immersion in time-tested sacred rites and doctrines that we can reorient our human psyche to its rightful place in the Spirit.

Our unavoidable conclusion from a close study of Jungianism is that it reflects merely Jung’s own personal struggle to forge a new belief system grounded in an idiosyncratic vision of psychology: “Believe me: It is no teaching and no instruction that I give you…. My path is not your path, therefore I cannot teach you.”[[281]] Arguably, this was also an attempt by Jung to compensate for his loss of faith in Christianity but, in the end, it only led to an empty and desiccated faith for a spiritually hungry modern world—recalling a scripture which may aptly have been validly asked of Jung: “If your children ask for bread, which of you would give them a stone?” (Matthew 7:9).

There is no other option to this impasse but to return to the metaphysical foundations of religion with its truly liberating “science of the soul.” Only then might we discern the tripartite division that exists within us, comprising Spirit, soul, and body. This will then allow the psyche to be correctly situated in humanity’s ontological hierarchy; namely, as a reality that is clearly subordinate to the divine spark in all creatures. Although spiritual traditions are not without their own challenges in what has become a desacralized world, they remain the only dependable paths of return—to our ever-present source—that is always available to us, notwithstanding the tenebrous nature of our times. “And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not” (John 1:5).

[[1]]:Edited by M. Ali Lakhani, KC
David Bakan, “The Moses of Michelangelo,” in Sigmund Freud and the Jewish Mystical Tradition (London, UK: Free Association Books, 1990), p. 122.

[[2]]: Sigmund Freud, “Letter to C.G. Jung—April 16, 1909,” in William McGuire (ed.), The Freud/Jung Letters: The Correspondence Between Sigmund Freud and C.G. Jung, trans. Ralph Manheim and R.F.C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994), p. 104.

[[3]]: C.G. Jung, “Letter to H.L. Philp—October 26, 1956,” in C.G. Jung Letters, Vol. 2: 1951–1961, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Gerhard Adler and Aniela Jaffé (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 334.

[[4]]: C.G. Jung, “New Paths in Psychology” (1912), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 7: Two Essays on Analytical Psychology, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, and Gerhard Adler (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972), p. 267.

[[5]]: “My aim was to protect and preserve my patient’s dignity and freedom, so that he could live his life according to his own wishes.” (C.G. Jung, “Approaching the Unconscious,” in Man and His Symbols, ed. C.G. Jung [New York, NY: Laurel, 1968], p. 45).

[[6]]: C.G. Jung, “Psychological Commentary on ‘The Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation’” (1939/1954), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 11: Psychology and Religion: West and East, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 525.

[[7]]: C.G. Jung, “Introduction to the Religious and Psychological Problems of Alchemy” (1943/1968), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 12: Psychology and Alchemy, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993), p. 9.

[[8]]: C.G. Jung, “The Relation between the Ego and the Unconscious” (1928), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 7: Two Essays on Analytical Psychology, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, and Gerhard Adler (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972), p. 185.

[[9]]: C.G. Jung, “The Real and the Surreal” (1933), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 8: The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972), p. 384.

[[10]]: C.G. Jung, “Sigmund Freud,” in Memories, Dreams, Reflections, trans. Richard Winston and Clara Winston,ed. Aniela Jaffé(New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1965), p. 151.

[[11]]: See Wouter J. Hanegraaff, “Carl Gustav Jung,” in New Age Religion and Western Culture: Esotericism in the Mirror of Secular Thought (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1998), pp. 496–513.

[[12]]: Ernest Jones, “The Theory of Symbolism,” in Papers on Psycho-Analysis (New York, NY: William Wood and Company, 1918), p. 179.

[[13]]: See C.G. Jung, “On the Psychology and Pathology of So-Called Occult Phenomena” (1902), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 1: Psychiatric Studies, trans. R.F.C. Hull, ed. Gerhard Adler (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983), pp. 3–88. See also F.X. Charet, Spiritualism and the Foundations of C.G. Jung’s Psychology (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1993).

[[14]]: C.G. Jung, “Commentary on ‘The Secret of the Golden Flower’” (1929/1957), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 13: Alchemical Studies, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983), p. 55.

[[15]]: C.G. Jung, “Commentary on ‘The Secret of the Golden Flower’” (1929/1957), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 13: Alchemical Studies, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983), p. 55.

[[16]]: C.G. Jung, “Letter to Oscar Nisse—July 2, 1960,” in C.G. Jung Letters, Vol. 2: 1951–1961, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Gerhard Adler and Aniela Jaffé (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 575.

[[17]]: R.C. Zaehner, “A New Buddha and a New Tao,” in The Concise Encyclopedia of Living Faiths, ed. R.C. Zaehner (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1967), p. 403.

[[18]]: R.C. Zaehner, “Introduction,” to The Concise Encyclopedia of Living Faiths, ed. R.C. Zaehner (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1967), p. 19.

[[19]]: Ananda K. Coomaraswamy, “On the Indian and Traditional Psychology, or Rather Pneumatology,” in Coomaraswamy, Vol. 2, Selected Papers: Metaphysics, ed. Roger Lipsey (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978), p. 335.

[[20]]: Miguel Serrano, “Letter to C.G. Jung—May 7, 1960,” in C.G. Jung and Hermann Hesse: A Record of Two Friendships, trans. Frank MacShane (New York, NY: Schocken Books, 1968), p. 82. “I don’t believe that many understand you—not even your own disciples.”

[[21]]: C.G. Jung, “Letter to R.J. Zwi Werblowsky—June 17, 1952,” in C.G. Jung Letters, Vol. 2: 1951–1961, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Gerhard Adler and Aniela Jaffé (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 70.

[[22]]: C.G. Jung, quoted in C.G. Jung Speaking: Interviews and Encounters, eds. William McGuire and R.F.C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993), p. 229.

[[23]]: Whitall N. Perry, “Nominalism to Atomism: The Outer Darkness,” in The Widening Breach: Evolutionism in the Mirror of Cosmology (Cambridge, UK: Quinta Essentia, 1995), p. 89.

[[24]]: See Frederic Spiegelberg, The Religion of No-Religion (Stanford, CA: James Ladd Delkin, 1953).

[[25]]: See Jeffrey J. Kripal, Esalen: America and the Religion of No Religion (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2008); Steven M. Wasserstrom, Religion after Religion: Gershom Scholem, Mircea Eliade, and Henry Corbin at Eranos (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999); Harry Oldmeadow, “Mircea Eliade and Carl Jung: ‘Priests without Surplices’? Reflections on the Place of Myth, Religion and Science in Their Work,” Studies in Western Traditions, No. 1 (1995), pp. 1–43.  

[[26]]: C.G. Jung,“Spirit and Life” (1926), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 8: The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972), p. 328.

[[27]]: C.G. Jung, “Commentary on ‘The Secret of the Golden Flower’” (1929/1957), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 13: Alchemical Studies, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983), p. 54.

[[28]]: C.G. Jung, “The Structure and Dynamics of the Self” (1951), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 9 (Part 2): Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self, trans. R.F.C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978), p. 223.

[[29]]: C.G. Jung,“Letter to Bernhard Lang—June 1957,” in C.G. Jung Letters, Vol. 2: 1951–1961, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Gerhard Adler and Aniela Jaffé (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 379.

[[30]]: C.G. Jung, “Letter to Josef Goldbrunner—February 8, 1941,” in C.G. Jung Letters, Vol. 1: 1906–1950, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Gerhard Adler and Aniela Jaffé (New York, NY: Routledge, 1992), p. 294.

[[31]]: C.G. Jung, “Conscious, Unconscious, and Individuation” (1939), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 9 (Part 1): The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious, trans. R.F.C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980), p. 283.

[[32]]: C.G. Jung, “The Conjunction” (1955–1956), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 14: Mysterium Coniunctionis, trans. R.F.C. Hull, ed. Gerhard Adler (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977), p. 551.

[[33]]: C.G. Jung, “Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle” (1952/1969), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 8: The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972), p. 493.

[[34]]: C.G. Jung, “The Conjunction” (1955–1956), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 14: Mysterium Coniunctionis, trans. R.F.C. Hull, ed. Gerhard Adler (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977), p. 551.

[[35]]: C.G. Jung, “Analytical Psychology and Education” (1926/1946), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 17: The Development of Personality, trans. R.F.C. Hull, ed. Gerhard Adler (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981), p. 107.

[[36]]: C.G. Jung,“Spirit and Life” (1926), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 8: The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972), p. 327.

[[37]]: C.G. Jung, “Psychology and Religion” (1938/1940), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 11: Psychology and Religion: West and East, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 12.

[[38]]: C.G. Jung, “Approaching the Unconscious,” in Man and His Symbols, ed. C.G. Jung (New York, NY: Laurel, 1968), p. 93.

[[39]]: C.G. Jung, “Letter to Bernhard Lang—June 1957,” in C.G. Jung Letters, Vol. 2: 1951–1961, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Gerhard Adler and Aniela Jaffé (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 375.

[[40]]: Frithjof Schuon, “Letter—August 7th, 1979,” in Towards the Essential: Letters of a Spiritual Master, trans. Mark Perry and Gillian Harris, ed. Thierry Béguelin (London, UK: Matheson Trust, 2021), p. 137.

[[41]]: Meister Eckhart, quoted in The Complete Mystical Works of Meister Eckhart, trans. and ed. Maurice O’C. Walshe (New York, NY: Crossroad Publishing Company, 2009), p. 28.

[[42]]: Moses Maimonides, “On the Terms: The Intellectus, the Intelligens and the Intelligibile,” in The Guide for the Perplexed, trans. Michael Friedländer (New York, NY: Dover, 1956), p. 100.

[[43]]: Rūmī, Discourse 38, Discourses of Rumi, trans. A.J. Arberry (London, UK: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004), p. 152.

[[44]]: C.G. Jung, “Commentary on ‘The Secret of the Golden Flower’” (1929/1957), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 13: Alchemical Studies, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983), p. 9.

[[45]]: C.G. Jung, “Introduction to the Religious and Psychological Problems of Alchemy” (1943/1968), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 12: Psychology and Alchemy, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993), p. 13.

[[46]]: C.G. Jung,“Letter to Bernhard Lang—June 1957,” in C.G. Jung Letters, Vol. 2: 1951–1961, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Gerhard Adler and Aniela Jaffé (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 375.

[[47]]: Shankara, quoted in The Vedānta-Sūtras with the Commentary by Saṅkarācārya, Part 2, trans. George Thibaut (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1890), p. 168.

[[48]]: C.G. Jung, “Confrontation with the Unconscious,” in Memories, Dreams, Reflections, trans. Richard Winston and Clara Winston, ed. Aniela Jaffé (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1965), p. 182.

[[49]]: C.G. Jung, “Letter to James Kirsch—January 29, 1953,” in C.G. Jung Letters, Vol. 2: 1951–1961, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Gerhard Adler and Aniela Jaffé (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 104.

[[50]]: C.G. Jung, “Confrontation with the Unconscious,” in Memories, Dreams, Reflections, trans. Richard Winston and Clara Winston, ed. Aniela Jaffé (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1965), p. 183.

[[51]]: C.G. Jung, “Confrontation with the Unconscious,” in Memories, Dreams, Reflections, trans. Richard Winston and Clara Winston, ed. Aniela Jaffé (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1965), p. 183.

[[52]]: C.G. Jung, “Confrontation with the Unconscious,” in Memories, Dreams, Reflections, trans. Richard Winston and Clara Winston, ed. Aniela Jaffé (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1965), p. 183.

[[53]]: C.G. Jung, The Red Book = Liber Novus, trans. Mark Kyburz, John Peck, and Sonu Shamdasani, ed. Sonu Shamdasani (New York, NY: Norton and Company, 2009), p. vii.

[[54]]: C.G. Jung, “The Way of the Cross,” in The Red Book = Liber Novus, trans. Mark Kyburz, John Peck, and Sonu Shamdasani, ed. Sonu Shamdasani (New York, NY: Norton and Company, 2009), p. 394.

[[55]]: C.G. Jung, “The Way of What Is to Come,” in The Red Book = Liber Novus, trans. Mark Kyburz, John Peck, and Sonu Shamdasani, ed. Sonu Shamdasani (New York, NY: Norton and Company, 2009), p. 119.

[[56]]: C.G. Jung, “The Way of What Is to Come,” in The Red Book = Liber Novus, trans. Mark Kyburz, John Peck, and Sonu Shamdasani, ed. Sonu Shamdasani (New York, NY: Norton and Company, 2009), p. 119.

[[57]]: C.G. Jung, “The Spiritual Problem of Modern Man” (1928/1931), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 10: Civilization in Transition, trans. R.F.C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970), p. 85.

[[58]]: C.G. Jung, “The Spiritual Problem of Modern Man,” in Modern Man in Search of a Soul, trans. W.S. Dell and Cary F. Baynes (New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1933), p. 207.

[[59]]: C.G. Jung, “The Spiritual Problem of Modern Man” (1928/1931), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 10: Civilization in Transition, trans. R.F.C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970), p. 84.

[[60]]: C.G. Jung, “The Self” (1948), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 9 (Part 2): Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self, trans. R.F.C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978), p. 35.

[[61]]: C.G. Jung, “The Psychological Foundations of Belief in Spirits” (1920/1948), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 8: The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972), p. 317.

[[62]]: See C.G. Jung, The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Supplementary Volume A: The Zofingia Lectures, trans. Jan van Heurck, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983).

[[63]]: C.G. Jung, “Letter to Bernhard Baur-Celio—January 30, 1934,”in C.G. Jung Letters, Vol. 1: 1906–1950, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Gerhard Adler and Aniela Jaffé (New York, NY: Routledge, 1992), p. 141.

[[64]]: C.G. Jung, “Sigmund Freud in His Historical Setting” (1934), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 15: The Spirit in Man, Art and Literature, trans. R.F.C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1971), p. 38.

[[65]]: C.G. Jung, “Letter to Victor White—October 5, 1945,”in C.G. Jung Letters, Vol. 1: 1906–1950, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Gerhard Adler and Aniela Jaffé (New York, NY: Routledge, 1992), p. 383.

[[66]]: C.G. Jung, “Psychotherapists or the Clergy,” in Modern Man in Search of a Soul, trans. W.S. Dell and Cary F. Baynes (New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1933), pp. 240–241.

[[67]]: C.G. Jung, “Analytical Psychology and Education” (1926/1946), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 17: The Development of Personality, trans. R.F.C. Hull, ed. Gerhard Adler (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981), p. 83.

[[68]]: Sigmund Freud, “Chapter 8,” in The Future of an Illusion, trans. and ed. James Strachey (New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 1989), p. 55.

[[69]]: C.G. Jung, “The Undiscovered Self” (1957), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 10: Civilization in Transition, trans. R.F.C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970), p. 256.

[[70]]: C.G. Jung, “Psychotherapy Today” (1945), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 16: The Practice of Psychotherapy, trans. R.F.C. Hull, ed. Gerhard Adler (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985), p. 82.

[[71]]: C.G. Jung, “Letter to Sigmund Freud—February 11, 1910,” in William McGuire (ed.), The Freud/Jung Letters: The Correspondence Between Sigmund Freud and C.G. Jung, trans. Ralph Manheim and R.F.C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994), p. 294.

[[72]]: Sigmund Freud, “Letter to C.G. Jung—February 13, 1910,” in William McGuire (ed.), The Freud/Jung Letters: The Correspondence Between Sigmund Freud and C.G. Jung, trans. Ralph Manheim and R.F.C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994), p. 295.

[[73]]: Philip Sherrard, “Christianity and the Religious Thought of C.G. Jung,” in Christianity: Lineaments of a Sacred Tradition (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1998), p. 154.

[[74]]: C.G. Jung, quoted in Peter Gay, Freud: A Life for Our Time (New York, NY: Anchor Books, 1989), p. 239.

[[75]]: Martin Buber, “Religion and Modern Thinking,” in Eclipse of God: Studies in the Relation between Religion and Philosophy (New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers, 1957), p. 84.

[[76]]: C.G. Jung, “Letter to Elined Kotschnig—June 30, 1956,” in C.G. Jung Letters, Vol. 2: 1951–1961, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Gerhard Adler and Aniela Jaffé (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 316.

[[77]]: Frithjof Schuon, quoted in Titus Burckhardt, Mirror of the Intellect: Essays on Traditional Science and Sacred Art, trans. and ed. William Stoddart (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1987), p. 66.

[[78]]: C.G. Jung, “Letter to Sigmund Freud—February 11, 1910,” in William McGuire (ed.), The Freud/Jung Letters: The Correspondence Between Sigmund Freud and C.G. Jung, trans. Ralph Manheim and R.F.C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994), p. 294.

[[79]]: C.G. Jung, “Psychological Commentary on ‘The Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation’” (1939/1954), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 11: Psychology and Religion: West and East, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 482.

[[80]]: C.G. Jung, “The Spiritual Problem of Modern Man,” in Modern Man in Search of a Soul, trans. W.S. Dell and Cary F. Baynes (New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1933), pp. 204–206.

[[81]]: C.G. Jung, “Answer to Job” (1952), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 11: Psychology and Religion: West and East, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 409.

[[82]]: C.G. Jung, “Late Thoughts,” in Memories, Dreams, Reflections, trans. Richard Winston and Clara Winston, ed. Aniela Jaffé (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1965), p. 340.

[[83]]: Ananda K. Coomaraswamy, Hinduism and Buddhism (New York, NY: Philosophical Library, 1943), pp. 6, 33.

[[84]]: Frithjof Schuon, “No Activity Without Truth,” in The Sword of Gnosis: Metaphysics, Cosmology, Tradition, Symbolism, ed. Jacob Needleman (London, UK: Arkana, 1986), pp. 36–37.

[[85]]: C.G. Jung, “The Symbolic Life” (1939), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 18: The Symbolic Life: Miscellaneous Writings, trans. R.F.C. Hull, ed. Gerhard Adler (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980), p. 274.

[[86]]: Réné Guénon, “Tradition and the ‘Unconscious,’” in Symbols of Sacred Science, trans. Henry D. Fohr, ed. Samuel D. Fohr (Hillsdale, NY: Sophia Perennis, 2004), p. 39.

[[87]]: Seyyed Hossein Nasr, “Scientia Sacra,” in Knowledge and the Sacred (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1989), p. 153.

[[88]]: C.G. Jung, “The Problem of Types in the History of Classical and Medieval Thought” (1921), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 6: Psychological Types, trans. R.F.C. Hull and H.G. Baynes, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990), p. 53.

[[89]]: C.G. Jung, “A Rejoinder to Dr. Bally” (1934), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 10: Civilization in Transition, trans. R.F.C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970), p. 540.

[[90]]: C.G. Jung, “Problems of Modern Psychotherapy,” in Modern Man in Search of a Soul, trans. W.S. Dell and Cary F. Baynes (New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1933), p. 31.

[[91]]: C.G. Jung, “Psychoanalysis and Association Experiments” (1906), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 2: Experimental Researches, trans. Leopold Stein and Diana Riviere (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981), p. 316.

[[92]]: Richard Noll, “‘The Secret Church’: The Transmission of Charismatic Authority,” in The Jung Cult: Origins of a Charismatic Movement (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994), p. 291.

[[93]]: C.G. Jung, “Therapeutic Principles of Psychoanalysis” (1912), in Critique of Psychoanalysis, trans. R.F.C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 114.

[[94]]: C.G. Jung, “New Paths in Psychology” (1912), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 7: Two Essays on Analytical Psychology, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, and Gerhard Adler (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972), p. 261.

[[95]]: The original meaning of “sin,” derives from the Greek word hamartia (Hebrew: hattat; Arabic: khatiah) which means “missing the mark,” as in “to err,” or “to go astray.”

[[96]]: C.G. Jung, “The Soul and Death” (1934), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 8: The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972), p. 410.

[[97]]: C.G. Jung, “The Spiritual Problem of Modern Man,” in Modern Man in Search of a Soul, trans. W.S. Dell and Cary F. Baynes (New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1933), p. 198.

[[98]]: C.G. Jung, “Psychotherapists or the Clergy,” in Modern Man in Search of a Soul, trans. W.S. Dell and Cary F. Baynes (New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1933), p. 232.

[[99]]: C.G. Jung, “New Paths in Psychology” (1912), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 7: Two Essays on Analytical Psychology, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, and Gerhard Adler (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972), p. 261.

[[100]]: Philip Sherrard, “Christianity and the Religious Thought of C.G. Jung,” in Christianity: Lineaments of a Sacred Tradition (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1998), p. 137.

[[101]]: C.G. Jung, “Letter to Max Frischknecht—April 7, 1945,”in C.G. Jung Letters, Vol. 1: 1906–1950, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Gerhard Adler and Aniela Jaffé (New York, NY: Routledge, 1992), p. 361.

[[102]]: C.G. Jung, “Letter to Charles E. Scanlan—November 5, 1959,” in C.G. Jung Letters, Vol. 2: 1951–1961, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Gerhard Adler and Aniela Jaffé (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), pp. 518–519.

[[103]]: C.G. Jung, quoted in Gerhard Adler, Dynamics of the Self (London, UK: Coventure, 1979), p. 90.

[[104]]: C.G. Jung, “The Dual Mother” (1911–1912/1952), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 5: Symbols of Transformation, trans. R.F.C. Hull, ed. Gerhard Adler (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976), p. 356.

[[105]]: C.G. Jung, “Lecture 5—The Travistock Lectures” (1935), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 18: The Symbolic Life: Miscellaneous Writings, trans. R.F.C. Hull, ed. Gerhard Adler (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980), p. 162.

[[106]]: C.G. Jung, “Lecture 5—The Travistock Lectures” (1935), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 18: The Symbolic Life: Miscellaneous Writings, trans. R.F.C. Hull, ed. Gerhard Adler (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980), p. 162.

[[107]]: C.G. Jung, “Lecture 5—The Travistock Lectures” (1935), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 18: The Symbolic Life: Miscellaneous Writings, trans. R.F.C. Hull, ed. Gerhard Adler (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980), p. 162.

[[108]]: C.G. Jung, “Psychology and Religion” (1938/1940), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 11: Psychology and Religion: West and East, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 89.

[[109]]: C.G. Jung, quoted in Richard Noll, The Jung Cult: Origins of a Charismatic Movement (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994), p. 286.

[[110]]: Charles Upton, “Can Jung be Saved? A Sufic Re-Envisioning of the Jungian Archetypes,” in The Science of the Greater Jihad: Essays in Principial Psychology (San Rafael, CA: Sophia Perennis, 2011), p. 95.

[[111]]: C.G. Jung, “From Esther Harding’s Notebooks: 1922, 1925,” in C.G. Jung Speaking: Interviews and Encounters, eds. William McGuire and R.F.C. Hull(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993), p. 29.

[[112]]: C.G. Jung, “Letter to Hélène Kiener—June 15, 1955,” in C.G. Jung Letters, Vol. 2: 1951–1961, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Gerhard Adler and Aniela Jaffé (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 265.

[[113]]: C.G. Jung, “Approaching the Unconscious,” in Man and His Symbols, ed. C.G. Jung (New York, NY: Laurel, 1968), p. 85.

[[114]]: C.G. Jung, “Letter to Olga Fröbe-Kapteyn—August 20, 1945,”in C.G. Jung Letters, Vol. 1: 1906–1950, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Gerhard Adler and Aniela Jaffé (New York, NY: Routledge, 1992), p. 377.

[[115]]: C.G. Jung, “Approaching the Unconscious,” in Man and His Symbols, ed. C.G. Jung (New York, NY: Laurel, 1968), p. 31.

[[116]]: C.G. Jung, “Psychotherapists or the Clergy,” in Modern Man in Search of a Soul, trans. W.S. Dell and Cary F. Baynes (New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1933), pp. 230–231, 232.

[[117]]: C.G. Jung, “On the Psychology of the Unconscious” (1917/1943), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 7: Two Essays on Analytical Psychology, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, and Gerhard Adler (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972), p. 20.

[[118]]: C.G. Jung, “New Paths in Psychology” (1912), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 7: Two Essays on Analytical Psychology, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, and Gerhard Adler (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972), p. 265.

[[119]]: C.G. Jung, “Psychotherapists or the Clergy,” in Modern Man in Search of a Soul, trans. W.S. Dell and Cary F. Baynes (New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1933), p. 225.

[[120]]: C.G. Jung, “The Stages of Life,” in Modern Man in Search of a Soul, trans. W.S. Dell and Cary F. Baynes (New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1933), p. 101.

[[121]]: C.G. Jung, “The Mana-Personality,” in Two Essays on Analytical Psychology, trans. R.F.C. Hull (New York, NY:Meridian, 1956), p. 244.

[[122]]: C.G. Jung, “Some Crucial Points in Psychoanalysis: A Correspondence between Dr. Jung and Dr. Loÿ”(1914), in Critique of Psychoanalysis, trans. R.F.C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 207.

[[123]]: C.G. Jung, “The Spiritual Problem of Modern Man,” in Modern Man in Search of a Soul, trans. W.S. Dell and Cary F. Baynes (New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1933), p. 217.

[[124]]: C.G. Jung, “On Creative Achievement” (1946), in C.G. Jung Speaking: Interviews and Encounters, eds. William McGuire and R.F.C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993), p.165.

[[125]]: A.A. Brill, “The Zurich School and Psychoanalysis,” in Freud’s Contribution to Psychiatry (New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 1944), p. 95. “To Brill and others on the staff Freud was known as Allah and Jung as his prophet.” (Harry K. Wells, “Psychoanalysis Comes to America,” in The Failure of Psychoanalysis: From Freud to Fromm [New York, NY: International Publishers, 1963], p. 22).

[[126]]: Helen Walker Puner, “See How It Splits,” in Freud: His Life and His Mind (New York, NY: Howell, Soskin, 1947), p. 168.

[[127]]: Philip Rieff, “The Therapeutic as Theologian: Jung’s Psychology as a Language of Faith,” in The Triumph of the Therapeutic: Uses of Faith After Freud (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1987), p. 139.

[[128]]: C.G. Jung, “Seminar—May 9, 1934,” in Nietzsche’s Zarathustra: Notes of the Seminar given in 1934–1939, Vol. 2 (Part 1), ed. James L. Jarrett (London, UK: Routledge, 2014), p. 24.

[[129]]: C.G. Jung, “Instruction,” in The Red Book = Liber Novus, trans. Mark Kyburz, John Peck, and Sonu Shamdasani, ed. Sonu Shamdasani (New York, NY: Norton and Company, 2009), p. 192.

[[130]]: C.G. Jung, “Men, Women, and God” (1955), in C.G. Jung Speaking: Interviews and Encounters, eds. William McGuire and R.F.C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993), p. 251.

[[131]]: C.G. Jung,“The ‘Face to Face’ Interview” (1959), in C.G. Jung Speaking: Interviews and Encounters, eds. William McGuire and R.F.C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993), p. 428.

[[132]]: C.G. Jung, “School Years,” in Memories, Dreams, Reflections, trans. Richard Winston and Clara Winston, ed. Aniela Jaffé (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1965), p. 40.

[[133]]: Margaret Ostrowski-Sachs, From Conversations with C.G. Jung (Zürich: Juris Druck & Verlag, 1971), p. 68.

[[134]]: C.G. Jung, “Introduction to Toni Wolff’s ‘Studies in Jungian Psychology’” (1959), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 10: Civilization in Transition, trans. R.F.C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970), p. 469.

[[135]]: Paul J. Stern, “The Psychological Club,” in C.G. Jung: The Haunted Prophet (New York, NY: Dell, 1977), pp. 152–153.

[[136]]: Fanny Bowditch Katz, quoted in Richard Noll, The Aryan Christ: The Secret Life of Carl Jung (New York, NY: Random House, 1997), p. 185.

[[137]]: Liliane Frey-Rohn, quoted in Richard Noll, The Jung Cult: Origins of a Charismatic Movement (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994), p. 285.

[[138]]: Jolande Jacobi, quoted in Richard Noll, The Jung Cult: Origins of a Charismatic Movement (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994), p. 286.

[[139]]: Christiana Morgan, quoted in Richard Noll, The Aryan Christ: The Secret Life of Carl Jung (New York, NY: Random House, 1997), p. 266.

[[140]]: Sigmund Freud, “On the History of the Psychoanalytic Movement” (1914), in The History of the Psychoanalytic Movement, ed. Philip Rieff (New York, NY: Collier Books, 1963), p. 95.

[[141]]: Sigmund Freud, “On the History of the Psychoanalytic Movement” (1914), in The History of the Psychoanalytic Movement, ed. Philip Rieff (New York, NY: Collier Books, 1963), p. 93.

[[142]]: C.G. Jung, “The Mana-Personality” (1928), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 7: Two Essays on Analytical Psychology, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, and Gerhard Adler (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972), p. 239.

[[143]]: Henri F. Ellenberger, quoted in Sonu Shamdasani, Cult Fictions: C.G. Jung and the Founding of Analytical Psychology (London, UK: Routledge, 1998), pp. 4–5.

[[144]]: Viktor von Weizsäcker, “Reminiscences of Freud and Jung,” in Freud and the 20^th Century, ed.Benjamin Nelson (New York, NY:Meridian, 1958), p. 72.

[[145]]: C.G. Jung, “Letter to Sigmund Freud—August 11, 1910,” in William McGuire (ed.), The Freud/Jung Letters: The Correspondence Between Sigmund Freud and C.G. Jung, trans. Ralph Manheim and R.F.C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994), pp. 345–346.

[[146]]: C.G. Jung, “Adaptation, Individuation, Collectivity” (1916), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 18: The Symbolic Life: Miscellaneous Writings, trans. R.F.C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980), p. 453.

[[147]]: Ernest Jones, “Letter to Sigmund Freud—December 5, 1912,” in The Complete Correspondence of Sigmund Freud and Ernest Jones, 1908–1939, ed. R. Andrew Paskauskas (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1993), p. 180.

[[148]]: Sigmund Freud, “Letter to Ernest Jones—December 8, 1912,” in The Complete Correspondence of Sigmund Freud and Ernest Jones, 1908-1939, ed. R. Andrew Paskauskas (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1993), p. 182.

[[149]]: Philip Rieff, “The Therapeutic as Theologian: Jung’s Psychology as a Language of Faith,” in The Triumph of the Therapeutic: Uses of Faith After Freud (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1987), p. 110.

[[150]]: C.G. Jung, “Confrontation with the Unconscious,” in Memories, Dreams, Reflections, trans. Richard Winston and Clara Winston, ed. Aniela Jaffé (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1965), p. 170.

[[151]]: C.G. Jung, “Confrontation with the Unconscious,” in Memories, Dreams, Reflections, trans. Richard Winston and Clara Winston, ed. Aniela Jaffé (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1965), p. 176. “My soul spoke to me in a whisper, urgently and alarmingly: ‘Words, words, do not make too many words. Be silent and listen: have you recognized your madness and do you admit it? Have you noticed that all your foundations are completely mired in madness? Do you not want to recognize your madness and welcome it in a friendly manner? You wanted to accept everything. So accept madness too. Let the light of your madness shine, and it will suddenly dawn on you. Madness is not to be despised and not to be feared, but instead you should give it life.’” (C.G. Jung, “Nox tertia [Third Night],” in The Red Book = Liber novus, trans. Mark Kyburz, John Peck, and Sonu Shamdasani, ed. Sonu Shamdasani [New York, NY: Norton and Company, 2009], p. 298).

[[152]]: Marie-Louise von Franz, “Introduction,” to The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Supplementary Volume A: The Zofingia Lectures, trans. Jan van Heurck, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983), p. xxiv.

[[153]]: C.G. Jung, “Letter to Oscar Nisse—July 2, 1960,” in C.G. Jung Letters, Vol. 2: 1951–1961, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Gerhard Adler and Aniela Jaffé (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 575.

[[154]]: C.G. Jung, “Confrontation with the Unconscious,” in Memories, Dreams, Reflections, trans. Richard Winston and Clara Winston, ed. Aniela Jaffé (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1965), p. 171.

[[155]]: C.G. Jung, “First Years,” in Memories, Dreams, Reflections, trans. Richard Winston and Clara Winston, ed. Aniela Jaffé (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1965), pp. 13–14.

[[156]]: C.G. Jung, “School Years,” in Memories, Dreams, Reflections, trans. Richard Winston and Clara Winston, ed. Aniela Jaffé (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1965), p. 41.

[[157]]: C.G. Jung, “School Years,” in Memories, Dreams, Reflections, trans. Richard Winston and Clara Winston, ed. Aniela Jaffé (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1965), p. 39.

[[158]]: C.G. Jung, “School Years,” in Memories, Dreams, Reflections, trans. Richard Winston and Clara Winston, ed. Aniela Jaffé (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1965), p. 40.

[[159]]: C.G. Jung, “New Paths in Psychology” (1912), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 7: Two Essays on Analytical Psychology, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham and Gerhard Adler (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972), p. 268.

[[160]]: C.G. Jung, “The Spiritual Problem of Modern Man,” in Modern Man in Search of a Soul, trans. W.S. Dell and Cary F. Baynes (New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1933), p. 217.

[[161]]: C.G. Jung, “Confrontation with the Unconscious,” in Memories, Dreams, Reflections, trans. Richard Winston and Clara Winston, ed. Aniela Jaffé (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1965), p. 173.

[[162]]: C.G. Jung, “First Years,” in Memories, Dreams, Reflections, trans. Richard Winston and Clara Winston, ed. Aniela Jaffé (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1965), p. 15.

[[163]]: C.G. Jung, “Psychological Commentary on ‘The Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation’” (1939/1954), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 11: Psychology and Religion: West and East, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 523.

[[164]]: C.G. Jung, “Psychological Commentary on ‘The Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation’” (1939/1954), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 11: Psychology and Religion: West and East, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 523.

[[165]]: C.G. Jung, “Psychological Commentary on ‘The Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation’” (1939/1954), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 11: Psychology and Religion: West and East, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 515.

[[166]]: C.G. Jung, “Letter to Bernhard Baur-Celio—January 30, 1934,” in C.G. Jung Letters, Vol. 1: 1906–1950, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Gerhard Adler and Aniela Jaffé (New York, NY: Routledge, 1992), p. 141.

[[167]]: C.G. Jung, “Problems of Modern Psychotherapy,” in Modern Man in Search of a Soul, trans. W.S. Dell and Cary F. Baynes (New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1933), p. 35.

[[168]]: C.G. Jung, “Introduction to the Religious and Psychological Problems of Alchemy” (1943/1968), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 12: Psychology and Alchemy, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993), p. 13.

[[169]]: C.G. Jung, “Introduction to the Religious and Psychological Problems of Alchemy” (1943/1968), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 12: Psychology and Alchemy, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993), p. 12.

[[170]]: C.G. Jung, “Psychology and Religion” (1938/1940), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 11: Psychology and Religion: West and East, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 12.

[[171]]: C.G. Jung, “On the Nature of the Psyche” (1947/1954), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 8: The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972), p. 200.

[[172]]: C.G. Jung, “On the Nature of the Psyche” (1947/1954), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 8: The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972), p. 215.

[[173]]: C.G. Jung, “Psychology and Religion” (1938/1940), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 11: Psychology and Religion: West and East, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 89.

[[174]]: C.G. Jung, “The Relation between the Ego and the Unconscious” (1928), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 7: Two Essays on Analytical Psychology, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, and Gerhard Adler (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972), p. 185.

[[175]]: C.G. Jung, “The Aims of Psychotherapy,” in Modern Man in Search of a Soul, trans. W.S. Dell and Cary F. Baynes (New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1933), pp. 72–73.

[[176]]: C.G. Jung, “Transformation Symbolism in the Mass” (1942/1954), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 11: Psychology and Religion: West and East, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 248.

[[177]]: René Guénon, “The Confusion of the Psychic and the Spiritual,” in The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times, trans. Lord Northbourne (Hillsdale, NY: Sophia Perennis, 2004), p. 237. See also Rama P. Coomaraswamy, “The Problems that Result from Locating Spirituality in the Psyche,” Sacred Web: A Journal of Tradition and Modernity, Vol. 9 (Summer 2002), pp. 101–124.

[[178]]: Erich Fromm, “Freud and Jung,” in Psychoanalysis and Religion (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974), p. 20.

[[179]]: Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Collations, 29: The Angel Gabriel was sent, Meister Eckhart, trans. C. De B. Evans, ed. Franz Pfeiffer (London, UK: John M. Watkins, 1924), p. 80.

[[180]]: Seneca, Moral Epistles 41.1, Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales, Vol. 1, trans. Richard M. Gummere (New York, NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1917), p. 273.

[[181]]: Seneca, Moral Epistles 41.2, Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales, Vol. 1, trans. Richard M. Gummere (New York, NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1917), p. 273.

[[182]]: Titus Burckhardt, “Modern Psychology,” in Mirror of the Intellect: Essays on Traditional Science and Sacred Art, trans. and ed. William Stoddart (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1987), p. 50.

[[183]]: Śrī Ramana Maharshi, “Talk 238—July 20th, 1936,” in Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi (Tiruvannamalai: Sri Ramanasramam, 1996), p. 191.

[[184]]: Bhagavad Gītā 10:20, The Bhagavad-Gītā with the Commentary of Śrī Śankarachāryā, trans. Alladi Mahadeva Sastri (Madras: V. Ramaswamy Sastrulu & Sons, 1961), p. 241.

[[185]]: Meister Eckhart, Sermon 1, Meister Eckhart: Teacher and Preacher, ed. Bernard McGinn (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1986), p. 241.

[[186]]: C.G. Jung, “Answer to Job” (1952), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 11: Psychology and Religion: West and East, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 469.

[[187]]: C.G. Jung, “The Song of the Moth,” in Psychology of the Unconscious, trans. Beatrice M. Hinkle (London, UK: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Company, 1922), p. 52.

[[188]]: C.G. Jung, “Aspects of the Libido,” in Psychology of the Unconscious, trans. Beatrice M. Hinkle (London, UK: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Company, 1922), p. 70.

[[189]]: C.G. Jung, “Psychological Commentary on ‘The Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation’” (1939/1954), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 11: Psychology and Religion: West and East, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 512.

[[190]]: C.G. Jung, “Letter to Wolfgang Pauli—May 4, 1953,” Atom and Archetype: The Pauli/Jung Letters, 1932–1958, trans. David Roscoe, ed. C.A. Meier (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014), p. 112.

[[191]]: C.G. Jung, “Freud and Jung: Contrasts” (1929), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 4: Freud and Psychoanalysis, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, and Gerhard Adler (New York, NY: Pantheon Books, 1961), p. 336.

[[192]]: C.G. Jung, “The Type Problem in Poetry” (1921), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 6: Psychological Types, trans. R.F.C. Hull and H.G. Baynes, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990), p. 248.

[[193]]: C.G. Jung, “School Years,” in Memories, Dreams, Reflections, trans. Richard Winston and Clara Winston, ed. Aniela Jaffé (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1965), pp. 68–69.

[[194]]: C.G. Jung, “Religious Ideas in Alchemy” (1937), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 12: Psychology and Alchemy, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993), p. 242.

[[195]]: C.G. Jung, “Letter to Bernhard Lang—June 1957,” in C.G. Jung Letters, Vol. 2: 1951–1961, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Gerhard Adler and Aniela Jaffé (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 378.

[[196]]: Titus Burckhardt, “Modern Psychology,” in Mirror of the Intellect: Essays on Traditional Science and Sacred Art, trans. and ed. William Stoddart (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1987), p. 59.

[[197]]: C.G. Jung, “Psychological Aspects of the Mother Archetype” (1938/1954), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 9 (Part 1): The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious, trans. R.F.C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980), p. 79.

[[198]]: Ibn ‘Arabī, quoted in William C. Chittick, The Sufi Path of Knowledge: Ibn al-‘Arabi’s Metaphysics of Imagination (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1989), p. 11.

[[199]]: C.G. Jung, “Confrontation with the Unconscious,” in Memories, Dreams, Reflections, trans. Richard Winston and Clara Winston, ed. Aniela Jaffé (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1965), p. 173.

[[200]]: C.G. Jung, “On the Nature of the Psyche” (1947/1954), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 8: The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972), p. 213.

[[201]]: C.G. Jung, “On the Nature of the Psyche” (1947/1954), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 8: The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972), p. 230.

[[202]]: Whitall N. Perry, “The Zodiac of the Soul: Observation on the Differences between Traditional and Empirical Psychology,” in Challenges to a Secular Society (Oakton, VA: Foundation for Traditional Studies, 1996), p. 201.

[[203]]: C.G. Jung, “Introduction to the Religious and Psychological Problems of Alchemy” (1943/1968), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 12: Psychology and Alchemy, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993), p. 12.

[[204]]: C.G. Jung, “The Problem of the Attitude-Type” (1917), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 7: Two Essays on Analytical Psychology, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, and Gerhard Adler (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972), p. 46.

[[205]]: C.G. Jung, “Some Crucial Points in Psychoanalysis: A Correspondence between Dr. Jung and Dr. Loÿ”(1914), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 4: Freud and Psychoanalysis, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, and Gerhard Adler (New York, NY: Pantheon Books, 1961), p. 287.

[[206]]: C.G. Jung, “Introduction to the Religious and Psychological Problems of Alchemy” (1943/1968), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 12: Psychology and Alchemy, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993), pp. 8–9.

[[207]]: C.G. Jung, “Letter to Victor White—December 18, 1946,”in C.G. Jung Letters, Vol. 1: 1906–1950, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Gerhard Adler and Aniela Jaffé (New York, NY: Routledge, 1992), p. 540.

[[208]]: C.G. Jung, “Letter to Kurt Plachte—January 10, 1929,”in C.G. Jung Letters, Vol. 1: 1906–1950, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Gerhard Adler and Aniela Jaffé (New York, NY: Routledge, 1992), p. 60.

[[209]]: C.G. Jung, “On Psychic Energy” (1928), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 8: The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972), p. 8.

[[210]]: C.G. Jung, “Dream-Analysis in Its Practical Application,” in Modern Man in Search of a Soul, trans. W.S. Dell and Cary F. Baynes (New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1933), p. 17.

[[211]]: C.G. Jung, “Late Thoughts,” in Memories, Dreams, Reflections, trans. Richard Winston and Clara Winston, ed. Aniela Jaffé (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1965), pp. 350–352.

[[212]]: C.G. Jung, “Fundamental Questions of Psychotherapy” (1951), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 16: The Practice of Psychotherapy, trans. R.F.C. Hull, ed. Gerhard Adler (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985), p. 124.

[[213]]: C.G. Jung, “The Real and the Surreal” (1933), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 8: The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972), p. 384.

[[214]]: C.G. Jung, “Psychology and Religion” (1938/1940), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 11: Psychology and Religion: West and East, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 49.

[[215]]: C.G. Jung, “Commentary on ‘The Secret of the Golden Flower’” (1929/1957), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 13: Alchemical Studies, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983), p. 11.

[[216]]: C.G. Jung, “Concerning the Archetypes, with Special Reference to the Anima Concept” (1936/1954), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 9 (Part 1): The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious, trans. R.F.C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980), p. 58.

[[217]]: René Guénon, “Individualism,” in The Crisis of the Modern World, trans. Arthur Osborne, Marco Pallis and Richard C. Nicholson (Hillsdale, NY: Sophia Perennis, 2004), p. 58.

[[218]]: C.G. Jung, “Answer to Job” (1952), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 11: Psychology and Religion: West and East, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 469.

[[219]]: C.G. Jung, “Psychology and Religion” (1938/1940), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 11: Psychology and Religion: West and East, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 96.

[[220]]: “[T]he only meaningful life ... is ... a life that strives for the individual realization.” (C.G. Jung, “The Development of Personality” (1934), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 17: The Development of Personality, trans. R.F.C. Hull, ed. Gerhard Adler [Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981], p. 181).

[[221]]: C.G. Jung, “The Self” (1948), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 9 (Part 2): Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self, trans. R.F.C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978), p. 24.

[[222]]: C.G. Jung, “Immersion in the Bath” (1945), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 16: The Practice of Psychotherapy, trans. R.F.C. Hull, ed. Gerhard Adler (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985), p. 82.

[[223]]: C.G. Jung, “The Undiscovered Self” (1957), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 10: Civilization in Transition, trans. R.F.C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970), p. 293.

[[224]]: C.G. Jung, “The Psychology of the Transference” (1946), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 16: The Practice of Psychotherapy, trans. R.F.C. Hull, ed. Gerhard Adler (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985), p. 178.

[[225]]: C.G. Jung, “Late Thoughts,” in Memories, Dreams, Reflections, trans. Richard Winston and Clara Winston, ed. Aniela Jaffé (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1965), p. 348.

[[226]]: C.G. Jung, “Psychology and Religion” (1938/1940), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 11: Psychology and Religion: West and East, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 6.

[[227]]: C.G. Jung, “Commentary on ‘The Secret of the Golden Flower’” (1929/1957), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 13: Alchemical Studies, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983), p. 49.

[[228]]: C.G. Jung, “Lecture Three—April 6, 1925,” in Analytical Psychology: Notes of the Seminar Given in 1925, ed. William McGuire (London, UK: Routledge, 1992), pp. 22–23.

[[229]]: Titus Burckhardt, “The Branches of the Doctrine,” in Introduction to Sufi Doctrine, trans. D.M. Matheson (Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom, 2008), pp. 26–27.

[[230]]: C.G. Jung, “The Aims of Psychotherapy,” in Modern Man in Search of a Soul, trans. W.S. Dell and Cary F. Baynes (New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1933), p. 64.

[[231]]: C.G. Jung, “Psychological Commentary on ‘The Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation’” (1939/1954), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 11: Psychology and Religion: West and East, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 511.

[[232]]: C.G. Jung, “The Self” (1948), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 9 (Part 2): Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self, trans. R.F.C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978), p. 34.

[[233]]: C.G. Jung, “Psychological Commentary on ‘The Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation’” (1939/1954), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 11: Psychology and Religion: West and East, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 476.

[[234]]: C.G. Jung, “The Psychology of the Transference” (1946), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 16: The Practice of Psychotherapy, trans. R.F.C. Hull, ed. Gerhard Adler (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985), p. 192.

[[235]]: C.G. Jung, “Seminar—March 13, 1935,” in Nietzsche’s Zarathustra: Notes of the Seminar given in 1934–1939, Vol. 2 (Part 1), ed. James L. Jarrett (London, UK: Routledge, 2014), p. 449.

[[236]]: C.G. Jung, “Approaching the Unconscious,” in Man and His Symbols, ed. C.G. Jung (New York, NY: Laurel, 1968), p. 93.

[[237]]: C.G. Jung, “The Self” (1948), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 9 (Part 2): Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self, trans. R.F.C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978), p. 24.

[[238]]: C.G. Jung, “The Alchemical Interpretation of the Fish” (1951), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 9 (Part 2): Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self, trans. R.F.C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978), p. 170.

[[239]]: C.G. Jung, “Self and Liberation: A Dialogue Between Carl G. Jung and Shin’ichi Hisamatsu,” in Self and Liberation: The Jung/Buddhism Dialogue, eds. Daniel J. Meckel and Robert L. Moore (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1992), p. 107.

[[240]]: C.G. Jung, “Self and Liberation: A Dialogue Between Carl G. Jung and Shin’ichi Hisamatsu,” in Self and Liberation: The Jung/Buddhism Dialogue, eds. Daniel J. Meckel and Robert L. Moore (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1992), p. 112.

[[241]]: C.G. Jung, “The Psychology of the Transference” (1946), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 16: The Practice of Psychotherapy, trans. R.F.C. Hull, ed. Gerhard Adler (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985), p. 265.

[[242]]: C.G. Jung, “Lecture 2—October 19, 1932,” in The Psychology of Kundalini Yoga: Notes of the Seminar Given in 1932 by C.G. Jung, ed. Sonu Shamdasani (London, UK: Routledge, 1996), pp. 39, 40.

[[243]]: C.G. Jung, “The Relations between the Ego and the Unconscious” (1928), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 7: Two Essays on Analytical Psychology, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, and Gerhard Adler (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972), p. 238.

[[244]]: C.G. Jung, “The Relations between the Ego and the Unconscious” (1928), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 7: Two Essays on Analytical Psychology, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, and Gerhard Adler (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972), p. 238.

[[245]]: C.G. Jung, “The Conjunction” (1955–1956), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 14: Mysterium Coniunctionis, trans. R.F.C. Hull, ed. Gerhard Adler (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977), p. 503.

[[246]]: C.G. Jung, “Psychological Commentary on ‘The Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation’” (1939/1954), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 11: Psychology and Religion: West and East, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 484.

[[247]]: C.G. Jung, “Psychological Commentary on ‘The Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation’” (1939/1954), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 11: Psychology and Religion: West and East, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 484.

[[248]]: C.G. Jung, “Seminar—October 31, 1934,” in Nietzsche’s Zarathustra: Notes of the Seminar given in 1934–1939, Vol. 2 (Part 1), ed. James L. Jarrett (London, UK: Routledge, 2014), p. 208.

[[249]]: C.G. Jung, “The Conjunction” (1955–1956), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 14: Mysterium Coniunctionis, trans. R.F.C. Hull, ed. Gerhard Adler (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977), p. 476.

[[250]]: C.G. Jung, “The Function of the Unconscious” (1953/1966), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 7: Two Essays on Analytical Psychology, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, and Gerhard Adler (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972), p. 173.

[[251]]: C.G. Jung, “Conscious, Unconscious, and Individuation” (1939), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 9 (Part 1): The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious, trans. R.F.C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980), p. 275.

[[252]]: C.G. Jung, “On the Nature of the Psyche” (1947/1954), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 8: The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972), p. 223.

[[253]]: René Guénon, “The State of Deep Sleep or the Condition of Prājña,” in Man and His Becoming According to the Vedanta, trans. Richard C. Nicholson (Hillsdale, NY: Sophia Perennis, 2004), p. 96.

[[254]]: C.G. Jung, “The Conjunction” (1955–1956), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 14: Mysterium Coniunctionis, trans. R.F.C. Hull, ed. Gerhard Adler (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977), p. 470.

[[255]]: C.G. Jung, “Adaptation, Individuation, Collectivity” (1916), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 18: The Symbolic Life: Miscellaneous Writings, trans. R.F.C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980), p. 453.

[[256]]: C.G. Jung, “Psychological Interpretation of Children’s Dreams” (Winter Term 1939/1940), in Children’s Dreams: Notes from the Seminar Given in 1936–1940, trans. Ernst Falzeder and Tony Woolfson, eds. Lorenz Jung and Maria Meyer-Grass (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008), p. 372.

[[257]]: C.G. Jung, “The Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious” (1934/1954), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 7: Two Essays on Analytical Psychology, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, and Gerhard Adler (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972), p. 96.

[[258]]: C.G. Jung, “The Personification of the Opposites” (1955–1956), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 14: Mysterium Coniunctionis, trans. R.F.C. Hull, ed. Gerhard Adler (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977), p. 104.

[[259]]: C.G. Jung, “Introduction to Kranefeldt’s ‘Secret Ways of the Mind’” (1930), in Critique of Psychoanalysis, trans. R.F.C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 217.

[[260]]: St. Symeon the New Theologian, quoted in Jean-Claude Larchet, Therapy of Spiritual Illnesses, Vol 2: An Introduction to the Ascetic Tradition of the Orthodox Church, trans. Fr. Kilian Sprecher (Montréal: Alexander Press, 2012), p. 194.

[[261]]: C.G. Jung, “The Song of the Moth,” in Psychology of the Unconscious, trans. Beatrice M. Hinkle (London, UK: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Company, 1922), p. 52.

[[262]]: C.G. Jung, “The Song of the Moth,” in Psychology of the Unconscious, trans. Beatrice M. Hinkle (London, UK: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Company, 1922), p. 53.

[[263]]: Clement of Alexandria, quoted in Eric Osborn, Clement of Alexandria (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 144.

[[264]]: C.G. Jung, “The Way of What Is to Come,” in The Red Book = Liber Novus, trans. Mark Kyburz, John Peck, and Sonu Shamdasani, ed. Sonu Shamdasani (New York, NY: Norton and Company, 2009), p. 125.

[[265]]: C.G. Jung, quoted in Marie-Louise von Franz, C.G. Jung: His Myth in Our Time, trans. William H. Kennedy (New York, NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1975), p. 174.

[[266]]: C.G. Jung, “Splitting of the Spirit,” in The Red Book = Liber Novus, trans. Mark Kyburz, John Peck, and Sonu Shamdasani, ed. Sonu Shamdasani (New York, NY: Norton and Company, 2009), p. 156.

[[267]]: See Gershom Scholem, “Redemption through Sin,” in The Messianic Idea in Judaism: And Other Essays on Jewish Spirituality (New York, NY: Schocken Books, 1995), pp. 78–141.

[[268]]: Aleister Crowley, “The Law of Thelema,” in The Book of the Law (Boston, MA: Red Wheel/Weiser Books, 1976), p. 9.

[[269]]: St. Augustine of Hippo, “Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John,” in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. Philip Schaff (New York, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1888), p. 504.

[[270]]: C.G. Jung, “The Philosophical Tree” (1945/1954), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 13: Alchemical Studies, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983), pp. 265–266.

[[271]]: Emma Jung, “The Anima as an Elemental Being,” in Animus and Anima (Dallas, TX: Spring Publications, 1987), p. 87.

[[272]]: Heart Sūtra, quoted in Buddhist Scriptures, trans. Edward Conze (New York, NY: Penguin Books, 1959), p. 162.

[[273]]: C.G. Jung, “The Holy Men of India: Introduction to Zimmer’s ‘Der Weg zum Selbst’” (1944), in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 11: Psychology and Religion: West and East, trans. R.F.C. Hull, eds. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adler, and William McGuire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), pp. 577, 578.

[[274]]: C.G. Jung, “Appendix: Answers to Questions on Freud” (1953), in Critique of Psychoanalysis, trans. R.F.C. Hull (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 237.

[[275]]: C.G. Jung, “Letter to Sabina Spielrein—October 10, 1917,” in C.G. Jung, “The Letters of C.G. Jung to Sabina Spielrein,” Journal of Analytical Psychology, Vol. 46, No. 1 (January 2001), pp. 188–189.

[[276]]: Peter Homans, “The Structure of Jung’s Mature Thought: Its Three Themes,” in Jung in Context: Modernity and the Making of a Psychology (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1979), p. 169.

[[277]]: C.G. Jung, “Prologue,” in Memories, Dreams, Reflections, trans. Richard Winston and Clara Winston, ed. Aniela Jaffé (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1965), p. 3.

[[278]]: C.G. Jung, “Confrontation with the Unconscious,” in Memories, Dreams, Reflections, trans. Richard Winston and Clara Winston, ed. Aniela Jaffé (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1965), p. 199.

[[279]]: Wolfgang Smith, “The Deification of the Unconscious,” in Cosmos & Transcendence: Breaking Through the Barrier of Scientistic Belief (Peru, IL: Sherwood Sugden & Company, 1990), pp. 130–131.

[[280]]: René Guénon, quoted in Ananda K. Coomaraswamy, Hinduism and Buddhism (New York, NY: Philosophical Library, 1943), p. 61.

[[281]]: C.G. Jung, “The Way of What Is to Come,” in The Red Book = Liber Novus, trans. Mark Kyburz, John Peck, and Sonu Shamdasani, ed. Sonu Shamdasani (New York, NY: Norton and Company, 2009), p. 125.