ZenBob/Cosmology of Consciousness

[Guest guest]

HS

 

Re: ZenBob/Cosmology of Consciousness

> ZEN2WRK

> Re: Re: Unconscious/correction if you please...

>

> Dear Gene:

>

> I enjoyed reading your remarks about Jung and the levels of the conscious,

> unconscious and superconscious (when available, as it usually is booked up

> solid).

 

Thanks, ZB. Even though, I hope I was clear that I do not 'believe' in

levels. I see the language of the great analysts as revealingly

metaphorical, as pointing, but not literal in 'meaning'.

 

For us to really, actually _know_ anything, we must have at least _one_

real thing to know, as the root-object for the process of ongoing

comparison. Like in mathmatics... the '1' is the root-object, from which

all other numbers spring. If there is no '1', there can be no equation...

> I enjoyed the reading of Jung far more than reading Adler or Freud, as I

> believe that Jung did not relate everything to guilt, to complex or to

> residual imprinting on a psychoanalytical level. His understanding of

> patterns, imprinting and even of transference, entrainment and he role of the

> subconscious as a powerful instrument of adaptation (even when it is working

> in a manner that is distorted) are clear and concise.

 

Yes, well put. It seems to me that Jung knew... the incredible danger

inherent in taking himself seriously. He posited only speculation, as a

trail of bread-crumbs for others. He understood, that if you want

delightful playmates, that 'you have to create them'.

> Jung was no doubt somewhat influenced by many of the experiences of religious

> ecstasy and of the writings of the Jains, Buddhists and other mystics on the

> topic of "No mind." Jung's practical nature seemed to accept many

> fascinating aspects of the power of the mind rather better than many

> scientists studying today. I often wonder why.

 

Have you read his autobiography; "Memories, Dreams, and Reflections"?

 

Jung had vast interior space, compared to 'most other people'. He could

entertain within himself, without attachment, complicated arrays of

theoretical entities. It was there, that he discovered the 'archetypes of

the collective unconscious'. Among those, he found the 'wise old man', who

is a kind of redeemer, a wisdom teacher... a Guru.

 

I feel that people do not understand that Jung practiced, very

deliberately, a discipline of _resisting coming to conclusion_. If you

think about it, such can be responsible for the unending outpouring of his

creativity. He seldom stated anything as 'final and complete'. It is he who

we have to thank, for the concept of the 'shadow', the understading of

which can 'explain' what evil 'is'...

> All of this begs the question (Zen question) of who asks "who am I" in the

> mind, and if the subconscious which is an 80% stockholder in all of our

> actions has been involved in that inner dialogue at all. I am tempted into

> accepting the school of thought (big irony here) that we do not in fact

> really "think" at all, but merely are machines capable of retransposing

> memorized ideas and linking phrases and words to impulses and feelings. This

> does not mean that we do not feel, but it indicates that what we say and

> think we mean, when we speak or write is not related very closely to what we

> are about on an interior level.

 

You point to the human Being as a 'transaction engine', and I tend to

agree, at least to the degree that 'transaction' is what is going on 99% of

the time. Grace gives... the remaining 1%. That ratio can be changed!

> Many Buddhists would agree, as "right action" is as important as right

> "speech" or right "thinking."

>

> Blessings,

> Love,

>

> Zenbob

 

Yes... one who realizes Empty Dharma... knows what is 'right'.

 

Thank you, ZenBob

 

==Gene Poole==

[Guest guest]

Dear Gene:

 

Warm greetings and thanks for the kind and very helpful reply. I have read

many of Jung's work, but I do not recall having read the autobiography, and

will amend my reading list for next week. Cannot imagine how I missed it,

unless I read it under a different title, or as part of a set of books. That

is quite possible. LOL

 

Yes, I often use the phrase, "After we have done all that we think we can do

to be our best, only grace allows us to become better."

 

That is the wonderful contradiction of living--one must strive to do good,

and be the best one can be as a person, and then one must learn to "let go"

and just be.

 

For some reason, this keeps repeating itself as a cycle, like some weird

cosmic washing machine that has not quite done with its human wash load. I

guess I am not "done" quite yet, and am awaiting the next "spin cycle" with

some amusement.

 

Blessings,

Love,

 

Zenbob

[Guest guest]

>ZEN2WRK

>

>Dear Gene:

>

>Warm greetings and thanks for the kind and very helpful reply. I have read

>many of Jung's work, but I do not recall having read the autobiography, and

>will amend my reading list for next week. Cannot imagine how I missed it,

>unless I read it under a different title, or as part of a set of books. That

>is quite possible. LOL

>

 

Just to add another testimonial: Jung's autobiography, which is titled

"Memories, Dreams, Reflections", is an amazing book, more than an

autobiography. I think it is essential to understanding Jung's more

technical books. I read it right after I got out of college, and a light

turned on in me that has never gone out.

I had 8 years of Jungian therapy, largely because of reading that book.

(no, not that it made me crazy! But that I knew I wanted a Jungian

therapist.) And it opens up a way of life, living awareness through dreams,

synchronicities, active imagination, which leads to a deep engagement with

the inner life.

In a way Jung, though, limited himself by sticking to a somewhat

"scientific" mask for his explorations. And even though I now live in

contexts that include but aren't limited to Jung's, I owe this book a debt

of gratitude for opening up a path to the second attention.

 

David

[Guest guest]

Hi David,

>>Zenbob:

>>Warm greetings and thanks for the kind and very helpful reply. I have read

>>many of Jung's work, but I do not recall having read the autobiography, and

>>will amend my reading list for next week. Cannot imagine how I missed it,

>>unless I read it under a different title, or as part of a set of books.

>>That

>>is quite possible. LOL

>>

>

>Just to add another testimonial: Jung's autobiography, which is titled

>"Memories, Dreams, Reflections", is an amazing book, more than an

>autobiography. I think it is essential to understanding Jung's more

>technical books. I read it right after I got out of college, and a light

>turned on in me that has never gone out.

>I had 8 years of Jungian therapy, largely because of reading that book.

>(no, not that it made me crazy! But that I knew I wanted a Jungian

>therapist.) And it opens up a way of life, living awareness through dreams,

>synchronicities, active imagination, which leads to a deep engagement with

>the inner life.

 

Jung was very important for my life too. In the autobiography he tells of

how he decided he needed to know what was in the unconscious and so he went

into it and explored it. He did it by a process of projection... so that,

for instance, he actually saw Philemon, his Wise Old Man, in his study,

talking with him.

 

Someone told me about that but didn't tell me that he used a method of

projection... I thought he just dived into the unconscious... actually

went inside. So when I had a real problem... I was becoming more and more

afraid of something and didn't even know what it was... I thought maybe

I'd better go inside and find out what was wrong. I thought since Jung did

it, it must be a safe enough thing to do. I asked a psychiatrist if it

would be all right... I'm not sure he understood what I meant, but he gave

me support... he laughed and said, "Well, I don't think you're going to

fall apart, do you?" And I laughed and said, "No."

 

So one night I went into a meditative state, focussed inside my head and

entirely apart from body consciousness, and went inside and down.

Immediately I encountered a monster... it was a terrible monster and at

the same time it was my mother... for a moment I was scared, but then I

realized it was the Guardian of the Gate... and it was there to protect me

from going that way before I was ready. So I walked through her and went on

down.

 

I did meet the archetypes... saw them and spoke with them... _was_ them

sometimes. Afterward, when I thought it all over, I understood what my

problem had been... and either it was gone or I knew enough then to handle

it.

 

When I was down there, I completely lost the awareness that I was doing

something on purpose... it was all happening to me, as in a dream... but

it was not a dream. I learned much, but I didn't do as much as I could

have... the Great Mother figure offered me a gift, and I didn't take it

then... I was too busy. So I still had much to do in later years.

 

When I have gone there again in recent years, I've been able to retain the

sense that I was there doing something... not that I'm "thinking"... I

don't know how to explain... at least, I don't feel lost and frightened...

it's a great adventure.

 

It is true that the archetypes are symbols. Their forms arise from the

collective unconscious... the ones I saw were also partially "dressed" in

my own understandings. But to say that they are symbols doesn't mean they

don't exist. They are true symbols... that is, the form in which they

appear is the best possible expression of what they are. No description in

words, no painting of the memory, can begin to communicate the same

thing... and certainly no explanation in other terms. There are no other

terms that will do... those symbolic beings _ARE_ the best possible

expression of what they are. More than that we don't know... we don't

know what is behind or expressing in those symbols.

 

I could say: but we do know... the All is expressing in everything. And

that is true, of course, but it begs the question... it's an entirely

different framework.

>In a way Jung, though, limited himself by sticking to a somewhat

>"scientific" mask for his explorations.

 

I think he was always acting in a scientific framework... but he opened

his mind... extended his explorations... farther than most. He went to

see and experience for himself.

 

I value his speaking as a scientist... being very precise about the

context in which he was speaking. I especially remember, in one book he

says that, speaking as a scientist, he cannot say anything about whether

God exists... but he can say that a God archetype exists in the collective

unconscious of humanity... and then he gives examples of people's

experiences of it.

 

Love,

Dharma

[Guest guest]

Dear David:

 

Thanks for the personal story and interesting

endorsement.

 

With any good fortune, Reading the Autobiography will not cast me into

therapy for many years. LOL However, I am sure it would further enrich my

understanding of his earlier works.

 

While on the subject of psychology/mind/psychiatry, what are your

experiences and thoughts on Ericcson and the Gestault/neurolinguistic

movement?

 

My own experiences have been thorough in these areas and Gestalt does not

violate any of Jung's precepts or observations (as far as I can ascertain).

It is limited however to achieving a breakthrough of common perception or

viewpoint with a person or condition. NLP (NeuroLinguistic Programming) on

the other paw, seems to be an interesting mental tool/trick by which to

reshape conscious attributes, "feelings" and actions/reactions in a very

practical way. I do worry that it can be abused.

 

Warm Regards,

 

Zenbob

[Guest guest]

Dear Dharma:

 

You wrote:

 

<< I especially remember, in one book he

says that, speaking as a scientist, he cannot say anything about whether

God exists... but he can say that a God archetype exists in the collective

unconscious of humanity... and then he gives examples of people's

experiences of it. >>

 

I think this is a very valuable idea expressed by you, expressed first by

Jung. It touches on the intrinsic nature of what it means to have

consciousness as a human. We are surrounded by the mysterious, but the

mysterious is also within us. The keys to forming "meaning" out of the

jumble of external reality are found within us as symbolic forms that

transcend words, culture, or personality. The Archetypes must spring from

the "inner causality of reality in our universe itself." My quotes there

should be taken as italics for stress.

 

Now, is this Cause God or is it consciousness?

 

On a practical level can we even suggest that one is separate from the other?

Christian, Sufi and Jewish mystics and scholars would say "no," and most

Hindu teachers would say that the nature of consciousness is intrinsic to the

concept of greater universal mind or God. However, Buddhism does not take

that path, and avoids several slippery slopes that could lead to spiritual

self aggrandizement, delusions of Messianic identity (note a psychological

defect found almost exclusively in Judeo-Christian-Muslim societies) or a

breakdown in the sense of personal Vs. spiritual/Godhead identity.

 

The aphorism in Hindu religion where one acknowledges that "Thou Art God" has

a wonderful quality to it on one level, but always leaves open a world of

strange and often disturbing interpretations. "Sure, I am, but thou art

not!" A very bad response, indeed.

 

Solipsism aside for the moment, Buddhism seeks to negate the issue, to remove

it from the worrisome level of mental consideration. There is only a vast

unnamable void or Nirvana...a state without tension, action, or thought. How

can no thought be God? How can inaction be part of the Creation? "Don't

worry about it" Buddhism teaches...be "mindful of your own mind" to find

peace, "Be a good person, learn compassion" and the other essential

ingredients of the 8 Fold Path.

 

In truth, I do not believe one way or another that Gautama Buddha, or those

he taught ever revealed if they personally thought there was a God or not. I

believe however that, whichever way they believed, they were convinced that

Humanity was not better served by the endless task of trying to please a

Supreme Being, being in fear of punishment of a Supreme Being, or spending

hours and days in slavish devotion to a Supreme Being. Brilliantly, Buddhism

teaches a path toward salvation and liberation, toward a state of spiritual

grace that short circuits most religious institutions, fanatic zealotry,

intolerance, and abusive church structures in a single act of unknowing. It

is power applied by inaction. It is fully in keeping with the tenets of

Buddhist belief at the highest levels. It avoids the contradictory state of

setting up an authority or outside agent for human salvation.

 

It's your life and you will be ultimately responsible for your own salvation.

(With the understanding that in later schools of Buddhism, the Bodhisattva

is allowed to teach and help provide examples for others to learn from...keep

in mind that this is heavily influenced by Hindu traditions, too).

 

So back to Jung. These eternal symbols for determining our understanding of

the universe and that suggest a God are interactive forms. When Buddhism

suggests that we strive for "good" or for compassion, it too, uses the

language of forms. "This is like this." Simile, allegory and anecdote are

used to lead one to understanding. But Buddhism believes that the forms for

all behavior and understanding ALL are contained within us, from the

beginning. This is Jung all over again!

 

We can be led to understand the nature of reality because the forms for this

exist within us ready to access. We can be shown the light by others, when

they make us look into ourselves for the truth. Compassion only works when a

compassionate person awakens compassion in the other person. A hard heart

can be melted, but a heart that knows not love remains a stone.

 

In reflection, I must believe that there is no true duality. There is no

"youIitGod." Not in the sense of No Time or endless time.

In the

eternal sense, all are absolute, all are merely aspects of one splendid note

singing in a void that has no end.

 

Blessings,

Love,

 

Zenbob

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/14/1999 8:50:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

ZEN2WRK writes:

 

<< think this is a very valuable idea expressed by you, expressed first by

Jung. It touches on the intrinsic nature of what it means to have

consciousness as a human. We are surrounded by the mysterious, but the

mysterious is also within us. The keys to forming "meaning" out of the

jumble of external reality are found within us as symbolic forms that

transcend words, culture, or personality. The Archetypes must spring from

the "inner causality of reality in our universe itself." My quotes there

should be taken as italics for stress.

 

Now, is this Cause God or is it consciousness?

 

On a practical level can we even suggest that one is separate from the

other?

Christian, Sufi and Jewish mystics and scholars would say "no," and most

Hindu teachers would say that the nature of consciousness is intrinsic to

the

concept of greater universal mind or God. However, Buddhism does not take

that path, and avoids several slippery slopes that could lead to spiritual

self aggrandizement, delusions of Messianic identity (note a psychological

defect found almost exclusively in Judeo-Christian-Muslim societies) or a

breakdown in the sense of personal Vs. spiritual/Godhead identity.

 

The aphorism in Hindu religion where one acknowledges that "Thou Art God"

has

a wonderful quality to it on one level, but always leaves open a world of

strange and often disturbing interpretations. "Sure, I am, but thou art

not!" A very bad response, indeed.

 

Solipsism aside for the moment, Buddhism seeks to negate the issue, to

remove

it from the worrisome level of mental consideration. There is only a vast

unnamable void or Nirvana...a state without tension, action, or thought.

How

can no thought be God? How can inaction be part of the Creation? "Don't

worry about it" Buddhism teaches...be "mindful of your own mind" to find

peace, "Be a good person, learn compassion" and the other essential

ingredients of the 8 Fold Path.

 

In truth, I do not believe one way or another that Gautama Buddha, or those

he taught ever revealed if they personally thought there was a God or not.

I

believe however that, whichever way they believed, they were convinced that

Humanity was not better served by the endless task of trying to please a

Supreme Being, being in fear of punishment of a Supreme Being, or spending

hours and days in slavish devotion to a Supreme Being. Brilliantly,

Buddhism

teaches a path toward salvation and liberation, toward a state of spiritual

grace that short circuits most religious institutions, fanatic zealotry,

intolerance, and abusive church structures in a single act of unknowing. It

is power applied by inaction. It is fully in keeping with the tenets of

Buddhist belief at the highest levels. It avoids the contradictory state of

setting up an authority or outside agent for human salvation.

 

It's your life and you will be ultimately responsible for your own

salvation.

(With the understanding that in later schools of Buddhism, the Bodhisattva

is allowed to teach and help provide examples for others to learn

from...keep

in mind that this is heavily influenced by Hindu traditions, too).

 

So back to Jung. These eternal symbols for determining our understanding of

the universe and that suggest a God are interactive forms. When Buddhism

suggests that we strive for "good" or for compassion, it too, uses the

language of forms. "This is like this." Simile, allegory and anecdote are

used to lead one to understanding. But Buddhism believes that the forms for

all behavior and understanding ALL are contained within us, from the

beginning. This is Jung all over again!

 

We can be led to understand the nature of reality because the forms for this

exist within us ready to access. We can be shown the light by others, when

they make us look into ourselves for the truth. Compassion only works when

a

compassionate person awakens compassion in the other person. A hard heart

can be melted, but a heart that knows not love remains a stone.

 

In reflection, I must believe that there is no true duality. There is no

"youIitGod." Not in the sense of No Time or endless time.

In the

eternal sense, all are absolute, all are merely aspects of one splendid note

singing in a void that has no end.

 

Blessings,

Love,

 

Zenbob

>>

 

Thanks for your very thoughtful post Zenbob and your insights comparing

various systems of thought. I especially liked the last paragraph.

 

Harsha

[Guest guest]

Hi Zenbob,

><< I especially remember, in one book he

> says that, speaking as a scientist, he cannot say anything about whether

> God exists... but he can say that a God archetype exists in the collective

> unconscious of humanity... and then he gives examples of people's

> experiences of it. >>

>

>I think this is a very valuable idea expressed by you, expressed first by

>Jung. It touches on the intrinsic nature of what it means to have

>consciousness as a human. We are surrounded by the mysterious, but the

>mysterious is also within us. The keys to forming "meaning" out of the

>jumble of external reality are found within us as symbolic forms that

>transcend words, culture, or personality. The Archetypes must spring from

>the "inner causality of reality in our universe itself." My quotes there

>should be taken as italics for stress.

>

>Now, is this Cause God or is it consciousness?

>

>On a practical level can we even suggest that one is separate from the other?

> Christian, Sufi and Jewish mystics and scholars would say "no," and most

>Hindu teachers would say that the nature of consciousness is intrinsic to the

>concept of greater universal mind or God. However, Buddhism does not take

>that path, and avoids several slippery slopes that could lead to spiritual

>self aggrandizement, delusions of Messianic identity (note a psychological

>defect found almost exclusively in Judeo-Christian-Muslim societies) or a

>breakdown in the sense of personal Vs. spiritual/Godhead identity.

 

Yes, and this is such a common problem... I wonder if everyone doesn't

confront it at some point. When it goes too far, it seems to be the same

thing they call Kundalini psychosis. Just a few years ago I lost a dear

friend when she went off the deep end with K. psychosis. People tried to

talk to her, and she just wouldn't listen to anyone... she knew better

than anyone else, and she wanted to remake and save all of us.

>The aphorism in Hindu religion where one acknowledges that "Thou Art God" has

>a wonderful quality to it on one level, but always leaves open a world of

>strange and often disturbing interpretations. "Sure, I am, but thou art

>not!" A very bad response, indeed.

 

Yes... I told my friend I wasn't worried about anything she said about

herself, as long as she didn't think she was the _only_ one. She said no,

of course not... but then she went right back to the same stuff... cause

she really did think so.

>Solipsism aside for the moment, Buddhism seeks to negate the issue, to remove

>it from the worrisome level of mental consideration. There is only a vast

>unnamable void or Nirvana...a state without tension, action, or thought. How

>can no thought be God? How can inaction be part of the Creation? "Don't

>worry about it" Buddhism teaches...be "mindful of your own mind" to find

>peace, "Be a good person, learn compassion" and the other essential

>ingredients of the 8 Fold Path.

>

>In truth, I do not believe one way or another that Gautama Buddha, or those

>he taught ever revealed if they personally thought there was a God or not.

 

Well, from what I read, I think when people asked him questions like that,

he just said something like, "I never promised to explain that to you.

What I did promise to explain is how to escape pain and suffering in this

life." He had something practical he wanted to teach, and he just wasn't

going to be side-tracked into metaphysical discussions. )

> I

>believe however that, whichever way they believed, they were convinced that

>Humanity was not better served by the endless task of trying to please a

>Supreme Being, being in fear of punishment of a Supreme Being, or spending

>hours and days in slavish devotion to a Supreme Being. Brilliantly, Buddhism

>teaches a path toward salvation and liberation, toward a state of spiritual

>grace that short circuits most religious institutions, fanatic zealotry,

>intolerance, and abusive church structures in a single act of unknowing.

 

Or a single act of knowing.

> It

>is power applied by inaction.

 

I think not all people perceive it in the same way. For some it may seem

to be action to go into the All or Nirvana.

> It is fully in keeping with the tenets of

>Buddhist belief at the highest levels. It avoids the contradictory state of

>setting up an authority or outside agent for human salvation.

>

>It's your life and you will be ultimately responsible for your own salvation.

> (With the understanding that in later schools of Buddhism, the Bodhisattva

>is allowed to teach and help provide examples for others to learn from...keep

>in mind that this is heavily influenced by Hindu traditions, too).

>

>So back to Jung. These eternal symbols for determining our understanding of

>the universe and that suggest a God are interactive forms. When Buddhism

>suggests that we strive for "good" or for compassion, it too, uses the

>language of forms. "This is like this." Simile, allegory and anecdote are

>used to lead one to understanding. But Buddhism believes that the forms for

>all behavior and understanding ALL are contained within us, from the

>beginning. This is Jung all over again!

 

What is true should be found everywhere, though in different words,

metaphors, symbols.

>We can be led to understand the nature of reality because the forms for this

>exist within us ready to access. We can be shown the light by others, when

>they make us look into ourselves for the truth.

 

Gautama said you have a light within you that will show you the truth.

> Compassion only works when a

>compassionate person awakens compassion in the other person. A hard heart

>can be melted, but a heart that knows not love remains a stone.

>

>In reflection, I must believe that there is no true duality. There is no

>"youIitGod."

 

Not in the All.

>Not in the sense of No Time or endless time. In the

>eternal sense, all are absolute, all are merely aspects of one splendid note

>singing in a void that has no end.

 

Beautiful!

 

Love,

Dharma

[Guest guest]

Dear Dharma:

 

A warm hug and a spiritual kiss from an unworthy friend...

 

Blessings

Love,

 

Zenbob

[Guest guest]

Dear Harsha:

 

Most appreciative of your kind comments.

 

I have enjoyed your words very much since joining this group. Very

supportive!

 

Blessings

Love,

 

Zenbob