Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fwd: Jung and Religion--Buber and Eastern mysticism--part I

Expand Messages
  • netemara888
    ... wrote: The paradoxical Abraxas of the early poem thus prefigures the self which Jung discussed over the next four decades as a a complexio
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 30, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In theosophy_talks_truth@y..., "netemara888" <netemara888@y...>

      "The paradoxical Abraxas of the early poem thus prefigures "the self"
      which Jung discussed over the next four decades as a "a complexio
      oppositorum." Self-knowledge is achieved through the conscious
      assimilation of the contents of the unconscious, including its
      dark "shadow" side, towards a goal of "wholeness." Jung, therefore,
      was deeply interested in the Gnostic insistence on evil as an active
      principle as opposed to the incomplete Christian view of evil as the
      privatio boni, the absence of good. "The Gnostics," he writes with
      approval, "exhaustively discussed the problem of evil," and he quotes
      the famous question of Basilides, "Whence comes evil?

      Hans Jonas presents a compelling argument, and the similarities
      between ancient Gnosticism and modern existentialism do seem at
      least "analogical." We should keep in mind, however, the surprising
      condemnation of Gnosticism made by Albert Camus. Gnosticism, he
      claims in "The Rebel" is conciliatory. It alters the course of
      metaphysical rebellion by developing the theory of a wicked, inferior

      "The Nag Hammadi Library" postscriptual writing by Robert Smith

      Comment: The above are two quotes which discuss the influence which
      gnosticism had upon Jung. Jung also wrote an entire book about "Evil"
      I can't find the title just now in my library but I did read it and
      it was probably a great influence on Scott Peck who wrote also on
      evil (a theme important to the field of psychology) Peck's book "The
      People of the Lie" is one of the best books on the subject. So I ask
      you why is that a philosopher who is as well read as Kaufmann claims
      him to be upset that a world-renowned psychologist (who broke away
      from Freud) would dare (Buber's claim) discuss religion, evil and

      If evil is now considered something which cannot be divorced from
      understanding the mind of the mentally ill--why would a psychologist
      NOT understand it? I believe it must be understood by any
      psychologist worth his salt. This brings me to Blavatsky, who was not
      a contemporary of these two but who greatly influenced Jung
      obviously. That Blavatsky also wrote a great deal about evil, and
      many times she pointed the finger directly at Judaism. I ask myself
      would this have anything to do with Buber and his diatribe against

      Then we have the added boon (see next post) of Buber imitating the
      Eastern religions and gurus who were his contemporaries hmmmmmmm....

      --- End forwarded message ---
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.