analysis and religion costello

8/3/2019 Analysis and Religion Costello

1/23

Lectures on the Relationship

between

Analytical Psychology and Religion

by John J Costello

1 What is Analytical Psychology and what is spirituality?

We all like to talk about ourselves, and what exercise could be more human and normal. In

particular we like to talk about ourselves, how we see ourselves, the world around us and

how that world deeply affects us within ourselves. Talking about ourselves aspsychological and spiritual beings is one of the more serious exercises we engage in. We

probably do so because it is through the psyche and spirit that we experience both ourselves

and the world around us. Such experience is both immediate and intimate to us, and

instinctively we seem to know that it can lead us to the highest and most treasured values

within ourselves. It can also lead us to the lowest possible values and our own degradation.

Such is our experience, and so also it is our choice.

Down through the history of mankind there has been this journey, this search, this quest for

the highest value. In anthropology it has been named as the search for the centre. In

psychological terms it has been described as the search for the wholeness. In religion it has

been the search for God, and in spirituality it has been the search for oneself. Here weactually run into a question of language. It would be extremely easy if I could just keep to

the descriptions I have just used but unfortunately there has been an overlapping of

language in the disciplines of anthropology, psychology, religion and spirituality.

What is reasonably clear in all the descriptions is that people are striving towards the

highest value and avoiding its opposite, namely, the lowest value. The various disciplines

of knowledge, psychology, philosophy and theology provide us with ways and means

towards reaching the reality of the higher value within ourselves. We speak about realizing

some of these higher values within ourselves. What this means is that we are trying to make

real within ourselves certain values that are of importance to us. Another way of describing

it is that we are trying to bring into consciousness within ourselves, for example, the realityof God--so real that He is present to us as a real flesh and blood person in outer reality.

Making contact with these inner realities makes our inner psychological and spiritual

systems wake up and be more alive. And even after some time when we have worked on

ourselves and those systems and values, we begin to be aware of ourselves as more human,

and notice the world around us and how that world deeply affects us within ourselves.

Talking about ourselves is experienced both as immediate and intimate to us and

instinctively we seem to know ourselves. These realities in us make us aware of our inner

systems and values, and we begin to be aware of ourselves as more together and whole. We

discover that we seem to act in a more coordinated and meaningful manner.

What appears to be happening is that the person's own inner faculties and qualities are

interacting with whatever else that is emerging from either within or without. I say within


2/23

or without because people seem to experience this process in different ways. My particular

reactions and the manner in which I live and deal with all these inner realities can be

brought together into one classification, namely, my spirituality. Discovering more about

myself and interacting with those spiritual values that attract and interest me leads me into

seeing myself as a spiritual being, a seeker of spiritual values, one who lives from an

understanding of spiritual values and one who has a belief, contact and experience of thespirit world. Put all that together and it gives one some idea of spirituality. The great world

religions have always claimed to hold the treasuries of the spiritual and hence have

traditionally caught the attention of those who have found the need for the spiritual journey

or search. Down through the centuries religion has been the means of exploring and

generating spirituality, and for many it continues to be this way.

But first let me look at the individual. Exactly what is and what can be found in that inner

world is a question that many people ask. It is from the background of that inner world that

many or most of our actions, feelings and thoughts come. Is it any wonder then that people

want to get behind that background to examine and explore the patterns and processes that

are endemic to their own very natures? Many people know and realize that they have beenconditioned and trained in particular patterns of thinking and behaviour, but they also

realize that they can and need to go beyond those patterns. They do so when they become

sufficiently strong and grounded enough within themselves to explore that background and

make it part and parcel of their lives. It is then a very human need to get to know and

understand oneself.

But what is it that lies in this background? In religious and spiritual terms there is a whole

inner world of realities similar to the external world we live in. It contains people, animals,

cities and continents. Additionally, there seems to be a certain hierarchy in the structure

whereby at the top and bottom ends there seems to be personages and places that bear no

reality to the external world we live in. Yet they appear to have a very definite attraction

and influence on us. These we call purely spiritual and, more commonly, they have the

names of God, angels and the devil.

This is but a very brief and scant introduction to what is seen as the main historical style of

approach to the individual's inner world, their inner dispositions and propensities. This area

of the personality has occupied the minds of all the great scholars down through the ages.

Many people had to rely and trust in their findings but side by side with all that there was

always the yearning in individuals for self exploration. The traditional means of this was to

get yourself into a monastery and to do the self exploration in the relative safety of the

monastic setting. It was from these places of meditation, prayer and reflection came themystics who were the great proponents of the inner world. However, in the last two

hundred years there has been a slow but very definite movement towards examining the

inner world in a manner that is different to the traditional style. I am speaking here of the

emergence of what is now commonly referred to as dynamic psychotherapy. Basically, it is

the systematic investigation and study of the unconscious mind and its psychic mechanisms

and patterns. The great names in the early period were Mesmer (1734-1815), Charcot

(1835-1893) and Janet (1859-1947). The three names that gained popularity in recent

decades are Freud (1856-1939), Jung (1875-1961) and Adler (1870- 1937). All these

individuals, as well as their close associates, explored and investigated the unconscious in

its many and various manifestations. It may be worthwhile to take a brief look at Mesmer,

Charcot and Janet for they were the antecedents of Freud and Jung as investigators of theunconscious.


3/23

The early explorers of the unconscious had no idea of what they were taking on. Little did

they realize how powerful and seductive the unconscious could be. Freud and Jung in the

course of their investigations both suffered from, what Henri Ellenberger calls, creative

illnesses. The history of the unconscious down through the ages has been marked by a

strong attraction and fascination to it. The follow-on problem has been the various attempts

that people have used to contain it.

Perhaps, I should move a little slower at this stage for I have begun to introduce some new

words. For example, I have begun to use unconscious instead of the inner world. The word

seems to have come into usage around the beginning of the 18th century, and its meaning is

as varied as its authors. Freud, for example, confined it to what is called the personal

unconscious, namely, the sum total of the individual's experiences that are no longer in

consciousness. Jung's concept was more expansive because he included what he called the

collective unconscious, namely, the potential to make contact with a stratum of the

personality that contained the experience of mankind down through the ages. The factor

that all these people hold in common is the unawareness by the individual of a background

that plays an important role in their lives. By comparison those who used such words asinner life and inner world used different categories of description and adopted varying

attitudes and means for dealing with the same reality whether it was called the unconscious

or the inner world.

Mesmer was around the age of forty when he made his first discoveries. By attaching

magnets to various parts of the patient's body and after swallowing a preparation containing

iron it was noted that a type of mysterious fluid ran through the body having a healing

effect. He concluded that this mysterious power was not just the effect of the magnets but it

was some type of power that potentially was to be found within the individual. This he

called animal magnetism. While Mesmer may have been correct in his observations, his

theories did not hold up to criticism. It would appear that the magnets were only a means

towards making contact with the unconscious and Mesmer seems to have missed this

possibility. It is not surprising because psychology was still in its infancy and the trend

towards a physical explanation was the one more likely to be sought. Part of Mesmer's cure

lay in bringing about a crisis where the patient artificially reproduced the disease, went into

crisis of attack by the disease and thereby affected a cure. In the treatment and with each

crisis provoked, it was noticed that the crises got less and less and in time the patient

recovered. This factor was taken up by other investigators who noted that the individual

seemed to fall into a peculiar trance-like state which was usually accompanied by a

heightened state of awareness. The patient did not seem to have any awareness of it later.

This type of state came to be called artificial somnambulism and was by later investigatorscalled hypnosis.

Gradually, it dawned on these investigators that the hypnotic sleep was being brought about

by suggestion and in many respects it was similar to ordinary sleep with the exception of

the suggestion. In the late 1870's Charcot, a distinguished neurologist, began to show an

interest in hypnosis as a means of treating his hysterical patients. He pointed to the various

stages in the hypnotic condition. His more startling discoveries lay in being able to

demonstrate how certain physical conditions had their roots in a psychological base rather

than in an organic one. He was able to demonstrate this by hypnosis and inducing those

states through suggestion which was no longer remembered by the patient in the waking

state even though the particular state of paralysis was in evidence. By reversing thesuggestion in hypnosis he affected many cures which were not organically based. In his


4/23

later years he was attracted to the examination of faith healing and at that time the much

spoken phenomenon of cures at Lourdes. Charcot also pointed to the existence of

unconscious fixed ideas which was to be taken up later by Freud.

In time these discoveries were scrutinized even further in the study of hysteria and neurosis.

Pierre Janet pointed to the existence of sub personalities emerging in these hypnotic states;they seemed to account for the dissociations that took place in consciousness. The problem

was how to heal them. These psychological states Janet called psychological automatism.

He began to realize that healing could not take place somehow without the active

participation of the awareness of the patient. This led him into a form of psychological

analysis whereby the unconscious processes and contents were made available to

consciousness. Through the process of analysis and synthesis the tenacious grip of the fixed

ideas on consciousness seemed to weaken.

This leads us straight into the work of Freud and Jung who attempted to bring together the

conscious and unconscious processes in the personality. Although differing in style both of

them were seeking to bring about a harmony within the individual and their relationship tothe world. However, what we need to examine here is how Jung saw this relationship

between the conscious and unconscious. Although not easy in practice to work out he

pointed to the existence of two distinct layers of the unconscious, namely, the personal

unconscious and the collective unconscious. He described the unconscious to be like a

number 2 personality residing within the individual; he went through a lot of difficulty to

show people how this number 2 personality could influence and interfere with the

awareness of the individual at the better known levels of consciousness. He pointed to

various components in that unconscious like the shadow, the animus and anima, the Wise

Old Man and the Wise Old Woman, the archetypes of the collective unconscious, the Self

and the God image in us all. Not only did he point out these components but he

demonstrated that these components emerged in a generally recognizable pattern which he

called the individuation process; and that pattern formed into a symbolic story which he

called one's own personal myth. That personal myth could be seen to have many parallels

and connections with universal myths and hence they linked up individuals in many ways

that made them more human and life more meaningful. What was inside people was

discovered to be more alive, immediate and personal: they became more real and one with

the world. It is somewhere at this stage that psychology, religion and the spiritual seem to

meet and I will return to that point at the next seminar.

When people arrive at this stage they begin to feel that they possess a power greater than

what they seem to have in consciousness. Some power or force can come to their assistancealthough they did not summon it up. In religious terms this could be seen to be the

Guardian Angel or God coming to the rescue. In psychological terms we could say that it is

a somewhat unconscious psychological component acting in a manner as if it was a

supplementary component of consciousness, and yet it is not. The reason that it acts in

harmony or with the unasked approval of consciousness is because there is a mutual

understanding between these two aspects of the personality and they both have the well

being of the other at heart.

One final point is worth noting and that is Jung's attitude to this task. Undertaking to

establish such a relationship with the unconscious involves a rather weighty decision. It

seems to be a momentous task and a life-long involvement. That is true and for Jung it wasakin to a religious involvement. In fact he spoke strongly of the need to have a religious


5/23

attitude in order to face the unconscious. It needed to be approached with reverence and

respect. The involvement was not to be undertaken lightly. Religion speaks in a similar

manner when it speaks of the difficulty in finding the pearl of great price.

The problem is well summarized in a conversation I once had with a friend who now lives

in in Japan. Christianity was brought to Japan some four hundred years ago and manypeople were converted to Christianity. Yet these very people are still dreaming of the

Buddha. On one level it can be said that they are Christian in attitude: that would be the

conscious level. At the unconscious level they were still Buddhists. Even after four hundred

years their inner images of the Buddha have not vanished completely. Yet somehow, for

these individuals, there was not a conflict between the two levels. It is like saying that

consciousness needs to bring light to the unconscious and the unconscious needs to bring

light to consciousness.

This is the manner in which I see analytical psychology and spirituality overlapping. They

are like two doors to the unconscious. Spirituality has a very long tradition; analytical

psychology has a very brief one by comparison. Both have a lot to learn from each other,neither one needs to be in conflict with the other. Perhaps this is what we can explore in the

next seminar.

2 The interfacing of Analytical Psychology and spirituality: Does such an interface

have a validity?

We have been examining briefly the notions of spirituality and analytical psychology. In

this seminar we need to examine in more detail whether we can actually note similarities

between these two disciplines. I suppose the very first question we need to ask is why such

a question has become so important to us. Most people will acknowledge the value of the

question but they are quite unable to answer the why.

As I understand the problem it is an observable fact, down through the ages, that people

have manifested a trait of serious curiosity in getting to know more about themselves. The

great religions stand as witnesses to that fact. Either in the mystics or the great holy men of

the religion, we have often read accounts that have made our hearts rest and stand still.

Such people have always been sought out so that they can tell us more about our inner

selves. The advent of printing and communication through the press, radio and television

has brought all these spiritual facts into our very homes. We are now fast approaching anage where there is a tremendous craving for the spiritual whenever it manifests itself. The

astrologers for the past two decades have pointed to the fact of the inevitability of this

swing to the spiritual with the coming of the Age of Aquarius. Repression, whether it has to

be seen in an outer or inner sense is being cast aside, and the catch-words are now freedom,

justice, renewal and values.

Where has analytical psychology been in all this? For over the past hundred years and more

especially through the research and work of Dr Carl Gustav Jung people have become more

acquainted with their own inner distresses. Jung has pointed out again and again that people

need to look into themselves for the solutions and that they are to be found in the

unconscious. Jung in particular has been popular with people simply because his


6/23

psychology has given scope to and dealt with very important aspects of the individual,

namely, the religious and spiritual dimensions.

Jung, despite his popularity among the public, did not always have such popular support.

The theologians viewed him with suspicion while within his own ranks the psychologists

viewed him as too mystical and giving psychology a bad name. His work, except with thefew, was viewed with suspicion because in those early days the unconscious was

categorized as being a part of the occult. At that time the occult had very definite

connotations of dark, evil, and against the individual's higher aspirations. By changing the

language he used to describe inner realities Jung gradually began to find and use less

emotive terms for what he wanted to describe.

The occult, for example, was replaced by the less dangerous word unknown. His use of

mystical was reduced drastically and this whole area found a new language in his

psychological terminology of the archetype. Likewise, the concept of the Self replaced the

earlier concept of the God-image. In his early seminars, currently coming into print, he

described the conscious and unconscious with the terms I and not-I. I have found thisdescription very useful in getting across the basic ideas of psychic processes. He raised the

level of the dream back to a place of respectability. Very few people seem to realise that it

was regarded in Old Testament times as one of the ways that God spoke to people. Jung

was modest in his claims. He always went to very great pains to demonstrate to people that

his findings were not first time discoveries but were psychic facts that had been lost to the

consciousness of mankind. Some of his books are rather long and tedious, but Jung had to

present evidence from history that what he was saying had already been known in another

age in the history of the human race. Even though he insisted on using the word re-

discovery, it did not alleviate the criticism and fears of his opponents. The clergy are still

highly ambivalent towards Jung's psychology. Originally, they were quite critical with the

exception of a few who spoke out and wrote in support of his views. That type of criticism

is not noticeable in recent years and it has now become more neutral. Some clergy, but not

very many, have gone and trained as Jungian analysts and I am reasonably hopeful that the

trend will continue.

Why do the majority of the clergy still stay clear of analytical psychology? The problem is

complex. Firstly, whether it pleases us or not Jung's psychology is a challenge to the

established beliefs of religion. Whether these are imaginary or real does not matter because

everybody recognizes that this is both a psychological and theological minefield. There is

no doubt that the insights of analytical psychology can enhance and enrich the individual's

personal beliefs and spirituality. Yet we have to place, side by side with all that, theopponents of Jung who see him as a great opponent of the authority of the established

church and an atheist who does not believe in the God of tradition. It is true that Jung's

theories are difficult, and very often he uses the very same language and words used by

religion but with certain degrees of modification. He claimed that he used the same words

but as psychological terms. Viewing such words from a psychological perspective or from

the perspective of psyche is something so subtle that even the best minds do not seem

capable of grasping it. Some do but they are not many.

Then there is the question of Jung's style and presentation of the subject matter. Reading the

Collected Works of Jung is no easy task. In places he is indeed very obscure and to the

outsider it can be very off putting. The clergyman with his trained mind is looking forclarity; he is apt to be very impatient with Jung's obscurantism. Unfortunately, the gems of


7/23

insight are to be found amongst these essays and papers by Jung. It is fair to say that the

subject of analytical psychology is subtle to grasp and difficult to understand. However, it

has to pointed out that it is a new discipline and has not had the advantage of the great

minds working over the terminology down through the ages.

Because of these predicaments inherent in the study of Jung, religion and spirituality it isvery difficult to find a great wealth of literature dealing with the interface between

analytical psychology and spirituality. Not enough clergy are having the experience of

analysis to put themselves in a favourable position to make the comparison between the

two. Likewise, there are not enough analysts who actively know and live their traditional

spirituality to make the comparison. Happily, the numbers are slowly growing on both sides

and we are moving away from the time when some analysts believed that psychology and

religion were in direct conflict with each other and could have no interface whatever. It is

interesting, at this point, to note that people with religious problems, and who turn to

analytical psychology for help, inevitably seek out the analyst who has experienced the

analytic and religious/spiritual tradition.

Another dilemma lies with the clergy themselves. Here there is a very real problem. Some

clergy are quite happy to go outside their own tradition to find whatever is missing. Others

are not willing to do so because they feel somehow that the charismatic and pentecostal

tradition in their own church is the answer: this is very much in evidence among the

Anglican and Catholic traditions. These fledgling movements have had their own

difficulties with their own church communities. Over the last twenty years I have seen these

movements grow from strength to strength within the church. There has been keen

competition as these movements gain popularity with congregations and find their

appropriate and legitimate places among the people of God. The phenomenon of Marian

shrines has been one of the widespread changes now sweeping through many countries. Yet

for some unknown reason there have been no writers of analytical psychology willing to

deal with these phenomena through a psychological investigation. Likewise, there has been

very little work done in the area of the psychology of ritual and the sacramental rites within

christianity. So the very roots of the Christian and European religious tradition have yet to

be put under the microscope of analytical psychology.

Some people point to the fact that analytical psychology is very individual and oriented

towards the individual. This is true in so far as it is both a compensation and a reaction to

the totalitarian age we live in. It does lead the individual away from the community so that

the person can gain a sense of who they are, and then hopefully reconnect themselves in a

more conscious way with the community. Sadly, that is a reality that gets forgotten by someanalysts when their assistance is sought. The churches go through historical stages of

falling congregations and it is not very surprising that analytical psychology picks up some

of the projections that say there is too much emphasis on the individual, the individual is

too selfish, the individual is only concerned with himself or herself.

Some twenty years ago I was at a gathering in Zurich of first year students in training, and

the group was addressed by the then president of the C G Jung Institute, Dr Adolph

Guggenbuhl-Craig. I can still remember how seriously and yet warmly he spoke of the

work we were about to engage in, namely, what he called "looking through the keyhole into

people's souls". That about summed it up for me. And he emphasised how important it was

not to abuse the privileged position we were to hold. He held the person--whoever theywere--in the highest respect.


8/23

The tradition of the religious attitude as formulated by Jung, and found in the interface

between analytical psychology and religion, is found in varying degrees among Jungian

analysts. For over fifty years the Guild of Pastoral Psychology has been a meeting ground

where analytical psychology and religion can be fruitfully discussed and explored. At one

stage there was a very distinct hope that some sort of training group would emerge from

within the Guild. This was some twenty years ago.

However, there is a greater appreciation nowadays for a place for the religious attitude

among Jungian analysts. A few years ago (1987) I came across a very interesting letter in

one of the psychological journals written by the same Dr Guggenbuhl-Craig. Here is what

he wrote:

"It has been almost a generation since Jung's passing, and his psychology continues to

flourish in different directions. Dr Andrew Samuels from London recently wrote a book

entitled Jung and the Post-Jungians. He divides the post-Jungians into three schools: the

classical, thearchetypaland the developmental. The classical Jungians elaborate on what

Jung wrote and said himself--the concept of the Self and individuation play a central role;the archetypal Jungians emphasize archetypes; and the developmental Jungians are

concerned primarily with the stages of growth from early childhood on.

I would like to propose a further classification of the post-Jungians.

Jung himself was apsychologistandpsychiatristwho studied the psyche and the ways and

means to cure its disturbances. Books such as Psychological Types, for instance, express

this side of Jung's professional work. On the other hand Jung was also a "closet"

theologian--despite all his dislikes for them, some people have gone so far as to call Jung

areligious prophet.Answer to Job certainly has theological significance. It is probably not a

coincidence that in American libraries, books about Jungian psychology are very often

found in religion departments.

Many would agree that Jung was a shaman as well. Synchronistic events seemed to happen

wherever he was present. Astrology interested him highly; and many of his experiences

seemed to have occurred outside time and space.

These three sides of Carl Jung--his clinical-psychological side, his religious side, and his

shamanistic--have been taken up by the post-Jungians.

The clinical psychological Jungians have an important role in most of the Jungian traininginstitutes. They work analytically and consider themselves as academic psychologists and

psychotherapists.

The religious Jungians are very often found among the clergy, or among psychologists who

once were priests or clergymen. They try to deepen the understanding of Christianity via

the broadening concepts of psychology. It is often their hope that Jungian psychology will

rejuvenate the teachings and the symbolism of the Christian churches and their rituals.

The shamanistic Jungians work mostly in the Jungian "underground", and are probably the

most numerous of the three groups. They are very fond of throwing the I Chingas a way of

relating to the collective unconscious. They often experience para-psychological events;dreams for them are not only a reflection of the psyche but function as oracles which have


9/23

portents for the future. Some of them go into rebirthing, and many of them are very close to

the "New Age" movement. Indeed, many "New Agers" claim Jung as one of themselves.

All three schools are important and have their justification. Different dimensions of psyche

can be approached by shamans, theologians, and clinical psychologists. Jung was a multi-

faceted genius who could use all three avenues to approach the psyche. Most of hisfollowers are not geniuses, however, and are able to approach the psyche in one way only.

This does not matter as long as each realizes that his or her way is not the only way. I, for

example, consider myself primarily a psychiatrist and clinical psychologist. I am a bit

suspicious of the shamans and would-be religious prophets and theologians among my

colleagues. And yet I have to admit: they talk as much about the psyche as I, and their

experiences and teachings are fascinating and, perhaps, just as valid.

I believe that the future well-being of Jungian psychology depends on the continuing

integration of these three approaches. Long may we facilitate each other."

These are the words of a Swiss Jungian analyst and writer. His sentiments are foundnoticeably with other Swiss analysts. It is in evidence also among the American analysts

because there has been a very strong tradition linking their training, at least in the early

years after Jung's death, to what is commonly called the Zurich orientation. That was an

emphasis on symbolism, dream interpretation and the religious attitude. The most prolific

American Jungian analyst and writer in this area is John A Sanford. More recently we have

the works of Marvin J Spiegelman and Murray Stein. In the wider field we have the

writings of Jean and Wallace Clift together with the contribution of Morton Kelsey: all

these are episcopalian priests. Another spiritual Jesuit author, William Johnson, has widely

acknowledged the contribution of Jung in his books both in America and England. In fact it

is now quite fashionable to include Jung's insights and observations in works on literature

and religion. Recognition of his contribution is coming much slower from the conventional

fields of psychology and psychiatry.

Here in England there was another type of development. This was the Guild of Pastoral

Psychology. Jungian analysts and clergymen have come together in this group for over fifty

years. Together with publications and conferences there has been an ongoing discussion of

the interface between analytical psychology and religion. Among the analysts who have

written extensively on religion is Vera von der Heydt while among the clergy we find

Christopher Bryant and David Cox.

But perhaps I ought to turn to Jung himself and see what he said. In discussing religion inDecember 1945 he wrote:

" I do not believe that reason can be the supreme law of human behaviour, if only because

experience shows that in decisive moments behaviour is precisely not guided by reason but

rather by overpowering unconscious impulses. There is nothing to cope with the latter but

their own equivalent, something that adequately expresses their nature, gives them name

and shape. There thus arises in consciousness a receptacle, so to speak, into which the

unconscious onslaught can pour and wherein it can assume cultural form. If this does not

happen, there is unquestionably a danger that the onslaught will express itself as

cataclysmically as an avalanche. This form has always been given by religion, never by

reason". (Letter 12 December 1945).


10/23

As late as 1961 he was saying that he still stood over a previous statement he had made in

1932 where he said that among all his patients in the second half of life none had really

been healed without first adopting a religious outlook.

I could go on endlessly quoting from Jung and other authors both psychological and

religious indicating how analytical psychology and spirituality/religion had manysimilarities. It appears that Jung had entered the very area of the psyche which in the

Christian tradition was called the psychology of the soul. There can be little doubt that such

a psychology of the soul has been of great benefit to people. How far the similarities can

run parallel with each other is a matter of speculation. What is clear is that they can run a

long way and that they are not in opposition to each other. Doubt has always been a motive

for seeking further knowledge and it is a healthy motive in the path to self knowledge and

spiritual development.

It is reasonable to make a connection between analytical psychology and spirituality. If a

person has that conviction it may be difficult to pursue it. Yet turning to ourselves we have

to face our convictions and establish the validity of those very convictions in the world welive in. If those convictions help us to do just that, then the validity has a reason for

surviving. This is just what many people do.

3 Some of Jung's Ideas on Religion and Spirituality

At this point I have to devote myself to giving some sort of picture of Jung as a person, the

son of a Swiss Reformed Church clergyman, and Jung the person who was to become the

psychologist and the commentator on empirical psychological data. I will try to do this

through a brief historical outline of his life.

Probably the very best account of his life is found in his autobiographyMemories, Dreams,Reflections which was published in 1963 some two years after his death. His story is onehow an introvert saw the world and how an introvert reacted to religion and the spiritual. In

those days the introvert was not very well understood and so to stand up and speak out, as

Jung did, was an example for all introverts to act in a similar manner. Such is his living

value as a person and psychologist.

Jung was born into a traditional protestant family that practised a rather recognizable form

of religion. His father was a protestant clergyman who appears to have had great difficultiesand doubts about his faith and religion. Jung from a very early age realized that he could

never go along the way of faith which his father had held in great reverence. He saw his

father as a man torn apart by the difficulties he had in preserving his faith. This was a great

dilemma for Jung because he was somehow led to believe that loss of faith could and would

lead to some kind of loss of soul. He never felt he had the capacity to believe like his father

even if he understood that it didn't help his father very much. However, that experience in

his early years was to have a profound influence on him and it took him very many years to

successfully shake it off. Jung had a sensitivity that was unrivalled and unmatched as he

was later to expose. This characteristic was probably derived more from his mother who

was warm possessing taste and depth. She had an interest in the spiritual and he probably

had some understanding from her in this area. However it has to be stressed that he had avery natural disposition in that direction. He was a natural solitary and from a very early


11/23

age he actually liked being alone and absorbed in his own thoughts and inner imaginal

world from a very early age. He possessed an uncanny insight to what lay within, and to

what held the key to many secrets and unanswered questions. In later years he commented

how impossible it was for him to go the way of faith. He always needed to know and for

him inner experience and inner conviction provided him with the necessary proof in what

was missing. This what was to lead him into his big lifetime work: the exploration of theunconscious.

Somehow he was very aware of his destiny, and it was further fuelled by an enormous

fascination with the unconscious. It was only a vague feeling in his early years, but in later

life he was to write: "It has always seemed to me that I had to answer questions which fate

had posed to my forefathers, and which had not yet been answered, or as if I had to

complete, or perhaps continue, things which previous ages had left unfinished" (MDR 260).

And when he was 80 he wrote:

"I have been only able to assimilate this kind of [theological] thinking in a very small way

if at all, in spite of, or perhaps because of, my maternal background and milieu which was atheological one, and that my father was a clergyman. My youth was overshadowed by the

tragedy of seeing my father break down before my very eyes unable to cope with the

problems of his faith; he died prematurely. Subjective inner experiences stopped me from

drawing negative conclusions from my father's fate with regard to faith, though under the

circumstances it would have been understandable if I had....... My studies offered me

nothing but reasons against religious faith and the charisma of faith itself was denied me. I

had to rely on experience alone" (Letter 13 June 1955).

All through his childhood Jung was absorbed with his own inner world. His interest in the

imaginal, fantasy and its expression through dreams, myth and religion contained all the

seeds of his future interests and work. Despite qualifying as a doctor and later as a

psychiatrist it never seemed to be enough for Jung, and his studies spread out into the areas

of philosophy and religion.

Life as a university student at Basel was exciting and put vast expanses of knowledge at his

disposal. However, it was not all straight forward. Many times he complained how he had

not been understood correctly and although his thoughts and reflections had been received

well at lectures he gave nonetheless his fellow students never seemed to possess a similar

stimulus in the same direction. This same feeling of not being properly understood was to

follow him throughout his life, but it was never sufficient to stop him. This is what he wrote

in 1897 at the age of 22 as he struggled with the significance of religion for himself:

"If we listen to certain sermons without any preconceived ideas, we will soon find

ourselves all agog with notions about grace and plans of salvation...... Deeds are needed to

wake up religion, miracles are needed, and men endowed with miraculous powers.

Prophets, men sent by God! Never has a religion sprung up from a dry theoretician or a

gushy idealist. Religions are created by men who have demonstrated with deeds the reality

of mystery and of the "extrasensory realm." The dry postulates of reason and mere religious

feelings cannot redress the ravages of our age; the only thing that can do that are facts that

directly establish the validity of something beyond the senses" (Zofingia Lectures, par 138).

Jung was to follow the way of mystery and the extrasensory realm for the rest of his life. Itwas somehow relatively easy for him to engage in such a task because of his introversion


12/23

and natural disposition in that direction. The task, however, was not without its dangers,

and on many occasions on that inner journey, he hovered on the borders of invasion by

attacks from his unconscious. Now what the mystics had, Jung did not have and that was a

language adequate to describe how he saw and experienced these inner realities. He also

needed a language to describe both the inner processes and their connections both with

consciousness and the external world. It was from this need that he developed apsychological terminology and what can be called the psychological concept. It is in this

area that he seems to have been most misunderstood; it is probably also the area from

which his understanding of religion comes. For that reason it is most important to have

some appreciation and grasp of what this means. So then, for example, if I have the inner

experience of a bird through the medium of an image or symbol, what does it say about my

experience? The very first thing I can say about it is that the experience is subjectively true

for me. In other words that experience as an experience cannot be questioned or denied

either by myself (which would be self deception) or by anyone else (which would be a

denial of my experience). To do so would be a direct denial of me, and who I am and my

capacity to experience. All my experience is mediated to me through my psychic processes

or psyche. So my image of the bird comes to my consciousness through my psychicprocesses and because these are readily available to me the experience cannot be denied.

The problem arises only when I begin to ask from where does the image of the bird arise.

Has it arisen from an external stimulus in the outer world or has it simply arisen from

another dimension within myself or perhaps some combination of inner and outer. If it

appears to be coming from the outer, then perhaps I can get hold of the bird, touch it and

examine it in many different ways. Gradually I will be able to find and recognize the

similarities between the outer reality, namely, the bird and the inner reality image of the

bird. In other words the outer reality is experienced through the medium of the inner bird

image. That perhaps is not too difficult to grasp because there is some correspondence

between the bird and the bird image. It is not too difficult to argue to the reality of the bird.

It is a very different problem to say what the bird is in itself.

But what if we have experiences and inner images of realities that do not appear to be as

tangible as, for instance, the bird. I am speaking here of inner realities that appear to have

no obvious counterparts other than the common experience of people. Here I am touching

on psychic and spiritual entities. Let me explain a little more graphically. I can have an

inner image and experience of God. That does not tell me whether God exists in Himself,

but it most certainly tells me that He exists as a reality within me. Again like the bird image

I have to ask if there is a further reality to the God image. Personally I have no difficulty

with that question because I have little difficulty in accepting and believing that there has to

be an imprinter whenever there is an imprint. In other words if there is a God image therehas to be a God behind it. However, I have switched from experience to belief and I have a

faith in that belief. That is a gift that some people have and others do not seem to have it in

the same degree. Jung, on his own admission did not have it. Others have it but they seem,

because of their sensitivities, need to experience what they need as well. These would fall

into the category of the doubting Thomases of the gospels. People who cannot believe, who

do not have this gift of faith, who in spite of good will and an integrity of spirit, have a very

great problem. They can conclude intellectually there is a God, they cannot believe in God

and yet they are unable to experience the very thing they cherish most and that is God.

Jung in order to explain and describe his stance had the need to explore and describe his

only source of meaning, namely, subjective experience. He was clear that he had to followthat way in order to achieve a meaningful life. Even the scriptures recognize that some


13/23

individuals have to find the law of God as it is written in their hearts. Jung was entering

such a tradition. By religiously following that inner way he came to experience God. In

1952 when John Freeman asked him in the BBC television interviewFace to Face if hestill believed in God, he replied: "Now? It is difficult to answer; I know; I don't need to

believe. I know." He then knew God and contended that he then had no need to believe, and

he found this acceptable. What he found difficult was that other people did not so readilyaccept his position for in some way they saw him as setting himself up as an authority in

opposition to the traditional authority of the church. It was really the age old problem in the

churches where there is the conflict between divine revelation and personal revelation. But

Jung wasn't remotely raising such questions. He was merely reporting what he experienced

in and through his psyche; he was reporting what other people experienced in a similar way

as well. He was reporting the human experience of these realities and he was not going any

further in what he said. He wasn't saying that if he experienced God negatively then God

had negative characteristics. What he was saying was that people experienced God both

positively and negatively but that he could not say whether God in himself possessed those

characteristics because that type of psychological experience could not mediate that

knowledge to him. He did not have a closed mind on the matter. This is what he said: "Butwhen there are sufficient reasons for a certain hypothesis, I shall accept ........ naturally"

(Face to Face 1959). Jung never renounced or repudiated Christianity. His acceptance of it

may be difficult and his writings could be seen as a great challenge to it. He encapsulates a

particular way of looking at religion, namely, the way of experience. I am careful not to say

that this encapsulated the way of the mystic because Jung does not appear to fall into the

category of the mystic's approach even though there are many obvious parallels.

Reading Jung and trying to understand him could lead to despair. His psychological

position is a very difficult one to maintain and there are few people who could match both

his style and particular approach to the individual. However he explored so much that it is

not very difficult to recognize oneself in many of his descriptions of inner states and

feelings, of psychological states emerging from the unconscious and the altered states that

are brought about in consciousness as a result. This is where people connect with Jung for

in telling us about his discoveries he is telling us about ourselves and very importantly on

many occasions he is telling us how adopt or find an appropriate response. For many he

gives the clues on how to find their way out of psychological and spiritual labyrinths.

People may have lost the art of keeping in contact and expressing the problems of these

labyrinths. Traditionally these labyrinths were expressed through the symbolism of religion.

Through secularization people have moved away from this method but unfortunately the

labyrinths have not moved away from the people. Psychotherapy fills the gap and Jung's

psychology in particular, to my mind, goes a very long way towards resolving the problemof the labyrinths and reconnecting once more with the earlier tradition used by religion.

It is only fair to say here at this stage that there are people who would totally disagree with

everything I have said about Jung. I am speaking of those who have great difficulty in even

understanding Jung. It is my own observation that side by side with every psychological

experience lies a philosophical attitude or position. That attitude whether it be cultural,

philosophical, religious or theological affects the manner in which one's experience is

interpreted. It is at this point that the wheels of history start grinding because there can be

many interpretations of the very same experience. This is one of the reasons why it is so

difficult to get agreement among people. There seems to be a better chance of agreement at

the level of experience and therein lie the hopes of the future.


14/23

So all the time what Jung is describing is the interaction between consciousness and what is

known and experienced from the unconscious. People have seen the value of it because

they can use it as a tool for self discovery and also as a therapeutic tool to resolve

psychological problems. It appears that the great possibility of success lies in keeping true

to one's experience and following it. And when I speak here of experience I am speaking of

those experiences that are important and significant to the individual. A Jungian analyst,Vera von der Heydt, wrote: "When an experience is numinous there is a deep emotional

reaction which affects one's whole being, body, soul and spirit, and the shock may be so

strong that an alteration of consciousness can take place."

This leads directly to what Jung meant and understood of the relationship between the

psychological and spiritual. In various places in his writings but more especially towards

the end of his life he pointed to the existence of the spirit world. Here is what he said:

"Of what lies beyond the phenomenal world we can have absolutely no idea, for there is no

idea that could have any other source than the phenomenal world. If we are to engage in

fundamental reflections about the nature of the psychic, we need an Archimedean pointwhich alone makes a judgement possible. This can only be the nonpsychic, for, as a living

phenomenon, the psychic lies embedded in something that appears to be of a nonpsychic

nature. Although we perceive the latter as a psychic datum only, there are sufficient reasons

for believing in its objective reality" (The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, p 228).

And again:

"It is this clear feeling of superiority that gives the phenomenon of the spirit its revelatory

character and absolute authority--a dangerous quality, to be sure; for what we might

perhaps call "higher" consciousness is not always higher from the point of view of our

conscious values and often contrasts violently with our accepted ideals. One should, strictly

speaking, describe this hypothetical consciousness as a "wider" one, so as not to arouse the

prejudice that it is necessarily higher in the intellectual or moral sense ( The Structure andDynamics of the Psyche, p 336).

And again he wrote in his essay The Spirit in Psychology: "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. We must apply this argument logically to the

archetypes as well. Since their essential being is unconscious to us, and yet they are

experienced as spontaneous agencies, there is probably no alternative at present but to

describe their nature, in accordance with their chieftest effect, as "spirit", in the sense whichI attempted to make plain in my paper "The Phenomenology of the Spirit in Fairy Tales." If

so, the position of the archetype would be located beyond the psychic sphere, analogous to

the position of physiological instinct, which is immediately rooted in the stuff of the

organism and, with its psychoid nature, forms the bridge to matter in general. In archetypal

conceptions and instinctual perceptions, spirit and matter confront one another on the

psychic plane. Matter as well as spirit appear in the psychic realm as distinctive qualities of

conscious contents. The ultimate nature of both is transcendent, that is, noumenal, since the

psyche and its contents are the only reality which is given to us without a medium" (TheStructure and Dynamics of the Psyche, p 215f).

In the his last published workMemories, Dreams, Reflections Jung was more adamant inhis view: "In my effort to depict the limitations of the psyche I do not mean to imply that


15/23

only the psyche exists ...... I have, therefore, even hazarded that the phenomenon of

archetypal configurations--which are psychic events par excellence--may be founded upon

apsychoidbase, that is, upon an only partially psychic and possibly altogether differentform of being. For lack of empirical data I have neither knowledge nor understanding of

such forms of being, which are commonly called spiritual. From the point of view of

science, it is immaterial what I may believe on that score, and I must accept myignorance...... Nevertheless, we have good reason to suppose that behind this veil there

exists the uncomprehended absolute object which affects and influences us--and to suppose

it even, or particularly, in the case of psychic phenomena about which no verifiable

statements can be made" (MDR, 384f).

It is reasonably clear that Jung accepted on an empirical basis that there existed an area or

dimension beyond which did not specifically arise from the inner workings of the psyche

and this he called the spirit world. In fact the older he got the more attracted to the content

of religion. It was not always the case and in his early studies he was poorly equipped with

a knowledge of the living religions around him: it was mainly derived from what his

patients told him. However in 1956 when Jung was 81 he was visited by the clergyman andwriter Morton Kelsey. Jung was at the stage where he was beginning to make his more

mature statements especially in the area of religion. Kelsey asked him what system of

psychotherapy was most similar to his. To answer that question Jung could draw on a

lifetime of experience and studying various systems of healing. The answer was a surprise

to Kelsey. This was Jung's reply: "The closest to my system of psychotherapy? ........

probably it was the method practised by Abb Huvelin and the men like him who were

skilled directors of conscience in France in the last century" (Encounter with God, p 159).

I remember being very excited about this discovery when I first read it. Sadly, no

commentator has ever researched the background to this statement by Jung. It may well be

that, for the more clinical and psychologically inclined Jungians, such a statement may be

aligning analytical psychology far too close to religion and the spiritual. I did some

research myself and I actually read some spiritual reading books by Huvelin. I could find

no trace of a formalized methodology in the writings. However, it was possible to discern a

certain style of approach and I am pretty certain that this is what Jung picked up. It would

appear that the tradition practised by Huvelin and others was more of an oral tradition of

spiritual guidance. The inner dialogue with oneself was of paramount importance and this

was effectively carried out with and through the help of the spiritual director. The

confessional dimension would have been very important and for those who did not or could

not believe, it became a very important way for getting to certain inaccessible areas within

oneself. The one factor that was vital here was emotional honesty and integrity; beingfaithful to oneself eventually led--even though it may be a very long way, it was the only

way--the individual to find themselves.

As early as 1939 Jung was extolling the psychological value of confessing. He gave a

lecture to the then newly formed Guild of Pastoral Psychology where he pointed out that it

did not matter whether or not the confessor understood. What was important was the

confessional aspect or in other words the actual honesty that lay behind in hearing and

being honest with oneself and God. Many times he remarked how he had been

complimented for the manner in which he taught his patients to be honest. In this way he

helped very many people, and especially Catholics, on how to be emotionally honest and

open. I believe this to be still true and it is one of the strong factors in Jung's approach.


16/23

Another aspect, equally important and connected with the confessional dimension, is his

attitude to taking responsibility for oneself and one's feelings. When people went to

confession it was important for them to confess regardless of the confessor understanding

or not. Why? Jung found that there were other factors involved. There was God who had

been offended and there was the other person and most important there was oneself. He did

not allow the consulting room to be used just as a means of getting these feelings out intothe open and then releasing oneself from any further responsibility now that the individual

had brought their difficulties and guilt to the surface. He did not accept, as some other

psychological approaches do, that the individual is released from all responsibility through

confession alone. He told his patients to go back and to confess these feelings to the person

they belonged to whether that be God, someone else or oneself. Taking such responsibility

for the feelings, in Jung's mind, was the only way to be finally released from the feelings of

guilt and wrongness. Here his findings and practice is very much in line with the traditional

spiritual director.

These factors are of utmost importance to anyone with a religious disposition and attitude.

In this area the problem that besets most people at one stage or another in their lives can besummed up like this. Either they are full of neurotic guilt, a guilty feeling without having

done anything that merited such feelings. Or they failed to have guilty feelings where they

deservedly should have them. Jung's approach is excellent in tracing down the roots of

neurotic guilt and likewise it is excellent in placing guilt to where it rightly belongs.

To conclude I want to say a few words about the use of symbols by traditional spirituality

and analytical psychology. The study of civilizations, culture and the history of mankind

show us very clearly how important a role symbols play. What we are witnessing here is

the movement of the masses of people by certain tendencies and traits that can be observed

at a symbolic level. I cannot deny such factors and I accept them but I have always felt

uneasy. I ask the question: what was going on in those individuals who formed those

groupings of people? Or in other words how or what symbols were being activated in the

psyches of people? How were these people being affected by both collective and individual

tendencies in the psyche? What type of symbols were to be found in the background to their

unconscious? It is no different at the present time. We are interested in finding what are and

in what way there are symbols and symbolic images at work in the background of our

consciousness: all affecting how we behave and act towards each other. That consciousness

is part of a greater and collective consciousness: that is what links us to other people.

Jung was quite adamant and scathing of the dangers involved about importing images from

outside ourselves. He did not deny their usefulness nor did he deny that they were capableof influencing people under the guise of subliminal images. But what he did point out is

that whatever images came from outside we had to be careful to ensure that they were

conducive and useful to our individual psyches. And he did give the guidelines on how that

could be worked out. Firstly, because something is good in general, it does not necessarily

mean that it should be good for you. Secondly, the pace at which you can become yourself

is related to the manner in which you can reflect, know yourself and the grace of God: it

cannot be forced or rushed ahead of itself no matter how good it may be in itself. Thirdly,

this is a psychological process and where you are both psychologically and spiritually may

not in fact be where you want to be. It may be where you wish you are going to arrive

eventually, but it cannot be forced. Lastly, the images and symbols that are currently active

within you actually tell you where you are in that process within yourself. These are the


17/23

images most accessible to us; they are our own and not imported; we can reflect and work

on them and ourselves, to bring us from where we are to where we are not.

4 Practical Approaches to psychology and religion. Getting to yourself throughpsychology, religion and spirituality.

To date in these seminars I have been trying to explain what I understand by spirituality and

how it can link up with analytical psychology in the individual. Religion and the religious

attitude play a very important role. While the two are strictly speaking not the same, for

many people they are the one and the same. I have kept to the spirituality of christianity

because it the one I know best and the one I have experienced. For those attending these

seminars my assumption has been that many would come from a Christian or post-Christian

tradition. For the vast majority of Europeans, even though they may no longer believe in

traditional christianity, the unconscious tradition they carry is christianity. I am not

addressing myself on how people should live their lives: that is their decision. What I amaddressing is a description of what is in the conscious and unconscious of people and from

that I hope they may arrive at some type of conclusion regarding the way they conduct their

lives. My aim is simply to clarify what is complex and difficult.

Getting to ourselves is something we all very much admire, we daydream and fantasize

about it. But when it comes to making it real it becomes elusive and really difficult. I have

been speaking for the past few seminars about getting back to ourselves, getting to know

our spirituality, getting to know how we function, how there are psychological factors from

the past and present that prevent us from getting there. I have been telling you about the

various attempts by people and religious movements to contain all that is inside in us. I

have been examining why we tend to fail in our efforts and rarely seem to get or hold on toourselves for very long.

In this seminar I want to try and show what I regard to be some of the contemporary

psychological and spiritual problems that inhibit us from becoming ourselves. One of the

greatest deficiencies in the modern person is imagination and its proper use. I say this

because I have come to regard it as one of the most important faculties we need to develop.

No contact with the imagination leaves the person out of touch with their own inner images,

the appreciation of symbols and the symbolic life: they have very little or no contact with

the richness of feeling that exists within themselves. In the course of time people neglect

their inner world, and when that happens that same inner world begins to assail them in theform of anxieties, fears and panic attacks. It is then they have to reach out for a solution and

that always involves the adopting of a religious attitude.

Now the question arises: what is meant by imagination? At this stage it is very easy to sit

back and say: of course, I know what it means. My own experience is to be very cautious of

the person who makes that all knowing type of remark. What they are talking about is about

people who are imaginative, and who through the use of their imagination can do creative

things. I do not wish to say that this is not imagination, but there is a lot more to it as well.

Imagination for me can be divided into two aspects, active and passive. An example of

imagination in the active mode would be if I wanted to form the image of an orange.Firstly, I would form, in my mind's eye, a round three dimension circular shape; I would


18/23

give the skin a certain quality and colour, and perhaps a certain type of feel and smell.

Whatever is inside me cooperates with my request for this image to be in a certain manner

and style. I can continue to hold it there in my mind's eye for as long as I wish. It is subject

to my wish and command. So I have to be active to keep a hold on it and if I were to let go

the image would be more likely to vanish. Some people, like those in advertising, are aware

that there is another dimension beyond the image of the orange that somehow can latch onthe image. That connection can affect people in a manner that they scarcely know is

affecting them. This we call subliminal advertising. It affects the individual in a manner

that allows them little control over what happens. I mention this, not to criticize subliminal

advertising, but merely to show that there is a psychological mechanism that latches on to

the actively constructed image of the orange. Creative people are aware of this factor in

varying degrees and it is reflected in the quality of their work.

So I return to the image of the orange. This time my purpose is to demonstrate the existence

of this other factor. In my mind's eye, I form the image of the orange. Instead of enhancing

it or alternatively letting it go and loosing it, I just hold on beholding and gazing at it. I

keep it static as if I was just balancing it in one position. After a while it settles down andremains static imperceptibly maintaining itself in position by its own energy. As long as I

do not break my connection with it, it seems to hold itself in front of me, hovering in a way

that seems to be independent of me, and any control being exerted by me. Whatever this

power and capacity is, it can hold the image in suspense: the power does not come from me

and it seems to come from a source other than my ego consciousness. This I call the passive

faculty of the imagination.

I keep looking at this image and it hovers there in front of me without any assistance. Later

it begins to change. First it is the shape, then the colour. In fact it looses its shape and

colour and turns into something else. That something else can subsequently become a

whole series of images forming a story. If we could only put some time aside and be quiet

we would notice such activity all the time quite close to the surface of our consciousness.

Most people tend not to look at these areas because such images and stories that emerge can

be fascinating, powerful and frightening. What we do not sufficiently realize is how much

these inner images and their concurrent feelings affect us. We may quite happily accept

their existence but it is much more difficult to see and acknowledge their influence on us.

Even if I do not start off with an image in my mind's eye and just leave it blank, silent and

still, a whole series of images will tend to come and go in the manner I have just described.

Some people will recognise these patterns because they will have learned and discovered

them through various techniques of prayer and meditation. Again, my purpose is todescribe how people pray and meditate; it is to portray in psychological terms what appears

to be going on between the conscious and unconscious components in the personality. So

what happens when people pray? One of the first things they learn is composure or an inner

way for getting silent within oneself. That is just a very difficult exercise for some.

Consciousness is turned in on itself. With a certain degree of self sacrifice and training this

technique can be learnt and acquired. Some people can achieve it on their own while others

can achieve it much easier within a group. Hence we find private and group prayer. This

turning in of consciousness is not just a morbid introversion akin to navel gazing: it is

seeking to make contact with the innermost feelings found in the unconscious. Usually, we

hear people expressing it in terms of trying "to get into themselves" or "to make contact

with themselves". Initially, that exercise is not too difficult but it becomes increasinglydifficult to sustain. From a psychological point of view, the longer the individual is in


19/23

contact with the unconscious the greater the contact is with the shadow dimension of the

personality. This is a very difficult stage especially when there is a lot of expectation of

calm, peace and serenity. Many people despair and give up at this stage.

The question arises at this point that if we have within ourselves the treasury of symbols

down through the ages, then how come we do not tend to experience them when we makecontact with the unconscious? In the case of christians I am speaking of the experience of

the traditional Christian symbols. It was this type of experience that led to the rapid spread

of christianity in the early years of the church. Some people seek analysis as a means of

reaching those symbols within themselves. The results can be disappointing.

Nearly some fifteen years ago I addressed myself to that specific question in some

correspondence with Morton Kelsey who was then beginning to publish books on the

interface between analytical psychology and christianity. We were both somewhat puzzled

by the fact that analysis alone was not sufficient to get to these deeper layers of the

unconscious. Neither of us felt that analysis would never get there, but we both concluded

that it would take a very long time. Reading through the accounts of people who haverecounted their experiences it seems to come only after very long periods of analysis. Here

we were agreeing that it could be in the region of around ten years. However, we were both

in agreement that analysis alone was not the only way to reach these areas within oneself.

What we did both agree on was that meditation, prayer and analysis together would

probably get the individual to the deeper levels of the unconscious and most likely to the

layer containing the Christian symbols. That was some fifteen years ago and nothing

significant in my experience has happened in those intervening years for me to change my

mind. My reasons for holding this view are difficult to explain and, if we see both prayer

and analytical psychology as different types of tools used to get to the deeper layers of the

unconscious, it can then be said that neither of them on their own, as used by lay people and

as opposed to monastics, succeeds in reaching those levels.

Here we see prayer and analytical psychology helping the individual. Meditation is yet a

further tool for getting to the unconscious. There are various types and stages of meditation

and they are all aimed at connecting with the deeper layers of the unconscious. In

meditation the ego stills itself and then forms an image in the style and manner laid down

by the style of meditation. Such images are imported into the imagination and they have to

be recognized for what they are worth: they are anthropomorphic or man-made images, that

is, the very best type of image that people can express in terms of bringing their vast

experience together. It is like saying they are the very best intimations of what the innerreality can be like. As images they are powerful and full of affect. For many individuals

they are sufficiently pregnant with affect. However the meditation manuals always indicate

that there are further degrees of meditation just beyond, what I call, burning the image into

one's psyche. That is when something from the deeper levels begin to emerge and latch on

to the image giving it a more numinous energy charge than it previously had. It is then that

people can begin to speak of a religious experience. All this may feel very simple from the

way I am describing it. Sometimes the image which was intended to act as a container for

the emerging experience breaks up and disintegrates leaving the individual in a very serious

state of spiritual/psychological disarray. This is why I say it is dangerous: it is never

possible to say that the human image is ever adequate to contain the emerging one more

especially if it is an experience of God. It is a bit like asking how does the infinite fit intothe finite. That is a paradox and all we know is that individuals have that experience and yet


20/23

paradoxically they survive to tell the tale. Not everyone who engages on the spiritual

journey into themselves have this type of shattering experience, but the underlying fear that

it might happen is in evidence in the very fibres of other areas of the unconscious. In other

words what I am saying is that even if there was no resistance in evidence at the conscious

level there are unconscious resistances within the very unconscious itself.

I can't say I can recommend such an approach to spirituality and the unconscious. It is

probably psychologically safer when not sought consciously, but it is very evident in some

individuals that it is a type of calling, visitation or vocation. All these have come to

individuals in an unasked manner. However, there are ways to the deeper layers that are

much safer. These are the collective ways through the sacramental system and through the

rituals connected with them. These are as rich as the individual way and are safer because

they have the advantage of being contained by the group.

So now I will move forward to some thoughts about ritual and the sacramental system. You

will notice that I am examining all these areas in the light of how they affect the human

condition and the human psyche; how conducive such methods and techniques are inrelation to the working and well-being of the individual's psychic health. I will be looking

for the psychic factors that appear to support and confirm the consciousness of the

individual and for whatever comes from within to support that consciousness. It would

appear that ritual and the sacramental system are means used to invoke and evoke the

deeper levels of the unconscious so that it can compensate, guide and support the

deliberations of the conscious psyche. I am not pointing to or supporting an anarchic

position being held by the individual but more to an appropriate attitude that allows the

individual to be one with oneself, God and the world at large.

Ritual prescribes the order in which a certain process is to be carried out. We are subject to

very many rituals although we may not be very aware of them. It could be said that ritual

refers to doing the right thing the right way. In religious practice it is very closely related to

the word liturgy which is the public worship of God. In religious practice the demands of

ritual are many. I shall examine some of these and try to relate them to the individual's

psychological condition in order to establish if they appear to be in the interests of the

individual's well-being.

Ritual is as old as the human race. And from a psychological point of view it can be said

that people have a tendency towards order and express it through ritual. By following ritual

the individual is brought into the deeper depths of oneself. This involved persons, places,

objects and a particular period or time being treated as sacred. Churches became sacredplaces set aside for contact with God and the deeper parts of oneself. Particular times

became important. Certain people, for example the priest, became sacred too. Qualities of

mind, body, soul and feeling became an important part of this task. All these items went to

form ritual and they became a certain order and type of service called the liturgy. And in

and through participation in these liturgical services people came to experience the deeper

levels within themselves. This is the whole aim behind liturgy and ritual. It is a whole

complex system that is laid out for people, and the only requirement is to participate in the

correct manner.

As systems become static and over ritualized they begin to stagnate and lose their

meaningfulness. They become dead and no longer attract the affective side of thepersonality. This is one of the accusations made very often against some forms of


21/23

institutional religion: they no longer possess the capacity to bring people to the deeper

levels within themselves. So what has psychology got to offer? Psychology can be a very

effective tool to use in order to find out what has gone wrong and why the deeper levels and

symbols are no longer alive in the individual. Psychology is not an alternative seeking to

replace religion: it is just a yardstick to tell us how we function. It tells us that our

imaginations are no longer working in a manner that is suitable for reaching the deeperlevels in ourselves. It says that we have lost a lot of our appreciation for symbols and the

symbolic approach to life. Our sacred places and objects are fast becoming desacralized.

Over the centuries no ritual system escapes becoming overladen with false meaning and

superstition. This is becoming more obvious in the loss of meaning and mystery now being

found in all that is sacred. Even the very meaning of sacred is being eroded. This difficulty

eventually arises when people are presented with a ritual that is virtually ready-made. The

great advantage of the affective approach through prayer, reflection and meditation that the

experience and meaning of the sacred is being revitalized all the time. Analytical

psychology tries in its own way to give individuals the experience of symbols, the sacred

and whatever else lies with in the personality. Such experience of these parts makes us feel

very real. Once when I speaking about an image in a dream I was told: "But you speak as ifit were real." The person who said it was very surprised when I said that it was so and that

all these different components of the personality, no matter in what way they may manifest

themselves, are in fact real. It is inevitable that people, who deny the reality of such parts of

themselves, fall into great depressions and very little is real for them.

In seeking to promote their own psychological and spiritual development many people seek

the way of religion. Many are now seeking the help of self awareness methods and various

types of meditation and eastern religions. Depth psychology is another approach used by

people. All these approaches have the distinct advantage that they help people to feel alive

and to be in contact with themselves. What they do not seem to have is a comprehensive

plan to help people live out of their newly found treasures within themselves. Here the great

religions have an advantage because they have been working on this problem over the

centuries. In fact they have worked on it so well that they have lost some of the art of

getting in contact with the more meaningful parts of the personality.

This brings me to the sacramental system within the church. The question I ask is: how far

does it go towards helping individuals to discover themselves and the deeper levels of the

personality? If I use analytical psychology as a yardstick it will reveal a certain number of

factors that confirm certain tendencies within the unconscious.

So what do I find about sacrament? I find that it deals with the sacred, possesses a sense ofmystery and hidden meaning; it can be a sacred symbol or ceremony; it can be a sign of

God; and it is an element that is present in rites of initiation. That is what history and the

history of religion tells us. But if we were to have no knowledge of the history of religion

and had to rely solely on the experience of our inner selves what would we discover? We

would discover that there are certain dimensions within us that are special and can be

designated as sacred. These parts can be certainly hidden and mysterious; within that

configuration there is a centre that is most important and singular. Some of these elements

are present at very important turning points in our lives. I have said elsewhere that these

elements and symbolic representations are full of meaning and significance. Experienced

over a long period we can see that they tell a story, the story or myth of our life.


22/23

Christianity presents us with the Christian way or living the life of Christ. One of the ways

we live the life of Christ is through the sacraments. In terms of analytical psychology this

can be seen as a type of individuation process, namely, the way in which we become

ourselves. Jung speaks about discovering our own personal myth and living it. Religion

presents us with an universal myth and our task is to personalize and make it real in

ourselves. Here there is a problem that needs some explaining. It appears that Jung andchristianity are speaking of the same objective, namely, getting to the deeper parts of the

personality. In this they are in agreement. Jung would then say to follow your own inner

images and you will arrive at your own self eventually. In other words he only uses the

images as a means of attracting the deeper images that arise within the individual.

Christianity does not do that, but what it does is to present certain images and symbols for

contemplation and reflection by the individual so that they may act as a means of attracting

the deeper images in the unconscious. Each method has its own attractions and dangers.

Christianity offers a rather concrete approach and points to the fact that Christ was the

living exemplar of that way. It is the way of Christ, being another Christ, being Christ-like.

It has the advantage of a collective support in terms of the sacraments, the prayer life, and

the quality of the life lived by its members. It offers a life with a transcendent andimmanent God, an afterlife together with a philosophy and metaphysical system to support

it. Such has been the traditional way for people to find themselves. It is a complex and

difficult system to experience and understand. It does not surprise me that many people

need faith to proceed along that way. It is also very much way of experience, and that way

accounts very much for the phenomenal spread of Christianity in the early centuries. There

has been a gradual easing off in the way of experience, and there never has been a century

when some dangerous practices have been condemned by the church. As well, over the

centuries certain aspects of the method have been forgotten and overlooked: they have

remained on only in very limited areas within the Christian church. However, the basic

spiritual needs have remained on in people and when they are not supplied, then they seek

them elsewhere. I am speaking here of deeper spiritual needs that enhance the dignity of the

human person.

Analytical psychology does not superimpose images on the individual's imagination. It

simply waits for what emerges. There a certain advantages to such an approach. It can

successfully deal with the type of individual who for some unknown reason is unable to

absorb the Christian symbols into his own imagination. Modern psychology is beginning to

throw some light on the problem. It appears that very human difficulties arise out of the

conditioning and the quality of the life lived in the family can effect the progress of the

spiritual development in the individual. Not half enough attenti

analysis and religion costello

Documents