Wholeness

[Karpel_Tunnel]

@felix dakat

@Karpel Tunnel

@felix dakat

Who’s into the ego dying ?

It seemed like you were assuming it was a good thing and must happen for individuation.

It has a self-transcending aspect, in so far as the ego must die so that more of the Self can be realized.

Not a good thing by a psychic fact–an archetypal image.

As evidence for the archetypal significance of ego death I submit the hero myth with it’s motif of death and rebirth. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero%27s_journey

Significance? I am not sure Campbell’s opinion counts as evidence - at least that’s the one spot in the wikipedia article where I see ego death approached, though here it is the attachment to the ego. Oh, there’s also something in Master of Two Worlds. I do know that for many influenced by either Eastern religions or Jung or both the idea that the ego must die is seen as necessary. I am not disputing that some people believe this.

Campbell’s proposition then, as one who was a student of mythology and the psyche. What did Jung say?

From Christ a Symbol of the Self Aion CW 9 ii, pars 79-98

"Just as we have to remember the gods of antiquity in order to appreciate the psychological value of the anima/animus archetype, so Christ is our nearest analogy of the self and its meaning. It is naturally not a question of a collective value artificially manufactured or arbitrarily awarded, but it one that is effective and present per se, and that makes its effectiveness felt whether the subject is conscious of it or not. Yet, although the attributes of Christ ( consubstantiality with the Father, co-eternity, filiation, parthenogenesis, crucifixion, Lamb sacrificed between opposites, One divided into many, etc.) undoubtedly mark him out as an embodiment of the self, looked at from the psychological angle he corresponds to only one half of the archetype. the other half appears in the Antichrist. the ladder is just as much a manifestation of the self, except that he consists of its dark aspect. Both are Christian symbols, and they have the same meaning as the image of the Savior crucified between two thieves. This great symbol tells us that the progressive development and differentiation of consciousness leads to an evermore menacing awareness of the conflict and involves nothing less than a crucifixion of the ego, it’s agonizing suspension between irreconcilable opposites. Naturally there can be no question on a total extinction of the ego, for then the focus of consciousness would be destroyed, and the result would be complete unconsciousness. The relative abolition of the ego affects only those supreme and ultimate decisions which confront us in situations where there are insoluble conflicts of duty. This means, in other words, that in such cases the ego is a suffering bystander who decides nothing but must submit to a decision and surrender unconditionally. The “genius” of man, the higher and more spacious part of him whose extent no one knows, has the final word. It is therefore well to examine carefully the psychological aspects of the individuation process in the light of Christian tradition, which can describe it for us with an exactness and impressiveness far surpassing our feeble attempts, even though the Christian image of the self-- Christ-- lacks the shadow that properly belongs to it. "

What do you take away from that?

I find Jung hard to interpret. There are points in there where I would not use the word ego the way he does. I think you could have an utterly egoless experience - in meditation, on a drug, in some intense ritual or experience - and be conscious. So I am not even sure what he means by that word and much of the rest seems not very clear to me. I like what I have gotten from Jung and Jungians and I have taken from them, but I do not find his work, in particular, very clear. Should it turn out, however, that he thinks of the ego negatively or considers to goal to be near to (but clearly from above not fully to) eradication of the ego, I disagree with him. I consider the ego our sense of ourselves as separate. certainly in some moments it can even be wonderful to not feel separate, though even in those cases I have found one can also, at the same time, be both separate and merged (with another person, with nature, with what seems other in the self and so on). But regardless I do not see the ending of the ego as a goal that interests me, nor does it seem to interest my id, however much negotiations are ongoing between my id and my ego. I also find that the ego can learn that the self is more than the ego realized and it is willing to be open and lose control while still being present. Of course all of this is very abstract and can be misinterpreted. Just doing my best given the slippery nature of these terms and the phenomenology of the experiences. I do think that some traditions want to get rid of the ego, want us to disidentify with portions of what I would call myself and would prefer to unify with and express. Those traditions and paths are not for me and I do not consider them an authority. Others, of course, can do what they wish with themselves.

[felix_dakat]

You seem to be looking at ego death as a theoretical once -for -all phenomenon whereas it can be a daily phenomenon as we strive to better ourselves reaching for our ego ideal and shedding our worse identities.

Jung doesn’t see ego death as an all-or-nothing phenomenon since he recognizes the necessity of a functioning ego to organize the conscious mind.

Anyway, in the first place, a phenomenological approach involves becoming aware of the images as they appear in the mind regardless of theory.
The myth of the dying and resurrecting hero has a long cross-cultural history and is present in the dreams of many of us including those with modern secular mindsets.
So what would be the basis for denying it universal archetypal status?
But perhaps you’re not doing that either. Maybe you’re just saying you don’t like it.
After all most of us in the Western world encounter it first through traditional Christianity to which many have an aversion today. And few if any find death attractive.
And yet it surrounds us. So ego death is without a doubt a negative aspect of the individuation process from one point of view. But inasmuch as it is a natural process, and therefore a life process, how can death be avoided? Life and death always go together.

[Karpel_Tunnel]

@felix dakat

You seem to be looking at ego death as a theoretical once -for -all phenomenon whereas it can be a daily phenomenon as we strive to better ourselves reaching for our ego ideal and shedding our worse identities.

I’m not assuming at all that it is a one big one shot thing.

As far as the ego ideal, I don’t think that striving for the ego ideal is a good thing. In fact I think it is part of the problem…

(in Freudian theory) the part of the mind which imposes on itself concepts of ideal behaviour developed from parental and social standards.

So, it’s kind of an image portion of the superego.

I don’t want to shed my worse identities, but integrate them.

Jung doesn’t see ego death as an all-or-nothing phenomenon since he recognizes the necessity of a functioning ego to organize the conscious mind.

Yes, he seems to have a different idea of what the ego is than I do or Freud does. Though to be honest I don’t really think in those terms. I am not Freudian nor Jungians though they affected me in many ways. I don’t really buy either of their models of the self.

Anyway, in the first place, a phenomenological approach involves becoming aware of the images as they appear in the mind regardless of theory.
The myth of the dying and resurrecting hero has a long cross-cultural history and is present in the dreams of many of us including those with modern secular mindsets.
So what would be the basis for denying it universal archetypal status?

I think Freud and to a lesser degree the Jungians have a lot of confirmation bias in their culling of archetypes from myths and stories. They ‘see’ their models and avoid seeing contradictions.

Further cultures do have some common judgements of, for example, the limbic system. Just because many cultures ‘think’ that a certain thing should happen does not mean it is right.

But perhaps you’re not doing that either. Maybe you’re just saying you don’t like it.
After all most of us in the Western world encounter it first through traditional Christianity to which many have an aversion today. And few if any find death attractive.
And yet it surrounds us. So ego death is without a doubt a negative aspect of the individuation process from one point of view. But inasmuch as it is a natural process, and therefore a life process, how can death be avoided? Life and death always go together.

Ego death is not death.

[felix_dakat]

@Karpel Tunnel

@felix dakat

You seem to be looking at ego death as a theoretical once -for -all phenomenon whereas it can be a daily phenomenon as we strive to better ourselves reaching for our ego ideal and shedding our worse identities.

I’m not assuming at all that it is a one big one shot thing.

As far as the ego ideal, I don’t think that striving for the ego ideal is a good thing. In fact I think it is part of the problem…

(in Freudian theory) the part of the mind which imposes on itself concepts of ideal behaviour developed from parental and social standards.

So, it’s kind of an image portion of the superego.

I don’t want to shed my worse identities, but integrate them.

Jung doesn’t see ego death as an all-or-nothing phenomenon since he recognizes the necessity of a functioning ego to organize the conscious mind.

Yes, he seems to have a different idea of what the ego is than I do or Freud does. Though to be honest I don’t really think in those terms. I am not Freudian nor Jungians though they affected me in many ways. I don’t really buy either of their models of the self.

Anyway, in the first place, a phenomenological approach involves becoming aware of the images as they appear in the mind regardless of theory.
The myth of the dying and resurrecting hero has a long cross-cultural history and is present in the dreams of many of us including those with modern secular mindsets.
So what would be the basis for denying it universal archetypal status?

I think Freud and to a lesser degree the Jungians have a lot of confirmation bias in their culling of archetypes from myths and stories. They ‘see’ their models and avoid seeing contradictions.

Further cultures do have some common judgements of, for example, the limbic system. Just because many cultures ‘think’ that a certain thing should happen does not mean it is right.

But perhaps you’re not doing that either. Maybe you’re just saying you don’t like it.
After all most of us in the Western world encounter it first through traditional Christianity to which many have an aversion today. And few if any find death attractive.
And yet it surrounds us. So ego death is without a doubt a negative aspect of the individuation process from one point of view. But inasmuch as it is a natural process, and therefore a life process, how can death be avoided? Life and death always go together.

Ego death is not death.

For me to take a hard stand on the ego ideal or ego death or even whether any of the images I present are archetypes of the collective unconsciousness would be counter to what I’m trying to do here which is to promote awareness of the spontaneous images which appear in the mind.
Now I will present images that have been produced by world mythology with a view to the question of whether these or similar images have occurred spontaneously in my mind.
Even the images of wholeness like the mandala I’m looking at from the standpoint of an image and bracketing the theory that it is an actual process of human development.
Thus do I intend to promote awareness of mental images, correlate them with world mythology, if possible, and avoid the pitfalls of objective theory and religion.
With that in mind, would you say that your above comments mean that you do not interpret such images of death and rebirth as you have in terms of ego death which is a concept or range of concepts?

[Karpel_Tunnel]

@felix dakat

For me to take a hard stand on the ego ideal or ego death or even whether any of the images I present are archetypes of the collective unconsciousness would be counter to what I’m trying to do here which is to promote awareness of the spontaneous images which appear in the mind.
Now I will present images that have been produced by world mythology with a view to the question of whether these or similar images have occurred spontaneously in my mind.
Even the images of wholeness like the mandala I’m looking at from the standpoint of an image and bracketing the theory that it is an actual process of human development.
Thus do I intend to promote awareness of mental images, correlate them with world mythology, if possible, and avoid the pitfalls of objective theory and religion.
With that in mind, would you say that your above comments mean that you do not interpret such images of death and rebirth as you have in terms of ego death which is a concept or range of concepts?

I would say that I do not know how many of these people intended these images to be interpreted (or what they meant in their unconscious minds). If I understand what you are saying here is that you are not trying to say what one should think or do, but rather just report what has been present in many places (myths dreams folk tales and so on). I would guess that a part of the human soul thinks that ego death is necessary for individuation, for example. I think there are other parts that do not. Further I think that some parts that seem to be presenting it - death rebirth - as a necessary stage could mean a variety ‘things’ by death and rebirth or the more specific detailed version in this or that myth.

There is a deep imprinting in us, about what must be. Even down in the collective unconscious there are ideas based on imprinting, not necessarily what is needed or possible.

So, I suppose I am saying that a bunch of things are going on, and one of them is that there is a stage of ego death and there are other competing ideas in there also.

A little bit like how there is the Oepdipus myth and then there is the myth of Ganesh, where the child (Ganesh) enters a realm of serious competition and drama and even hatred between his parents. IOW he is not the active creator of the problems, but someone caught in the middle - at least in some of the versions of his story.

Freud noticed myths that reinforced the story that he felt was central. Jung did this also - though he definition came up with more core stories than Freud. I see an oversimplification and also an appeal to authority in relation to the collective unconscious. Though I realize part of my response is now going where you aren’t really intending to go.

Perhaps I have takne the thread to far from your intent and I don’t want to hijack so I will leave it here. I hope I have been clear, and that even if I wandered off topic, I did also respond to the topic.

[felix_dakat]

@Karpel Tunnel

@felix dakat

For me to take a hard stand on the ego ideal or ego death or even whether any of the images I present are archetypes of the collective unconsciousness would be counter to what I’m trying to do here which is to promote awareness of the spontaneous images which appear in the mind.
Now I will present images that have been produced by world mythology with a view to the question of whether these or similar images have occurred spontaneously in my mind.
Even the images of wholeness like the mandala I’m looking at from the standpoint of an image and bracketing the theory that it is an actual process of human development.
Thus do I intend to promote awareness of mental images, correlate them with world mythology, if possible, and avoid the pitfalls of objective theory and religion.
With that in mind, would you say that your above comments mean that you do not interpret such images of death and rebirth as you have in terms of ego death which is a concept or range of concepts?

I would say that I do not know how many of these people intended these images to be interpreted (or what they meant in their unconscious minds). If I understand what you are saying here is that you are not trying to say what one should think or do, but rather just report what has been present in many places (myths dreams folk tales and so on). I would guess that a part of the human soul thinks that ego death is necessary for individuation, for example. I think there are other parts that do not. Further I think that some parts that seem to be presenting it - death rebirth - as a necessary stage could mean a variety ‘things’ by death and rebirth or the more specific detailed version in this or that myth.

There is a deep imprinting in us, about what must be. Even down in the collective unconscious there are ideas based on imprinting, not necessarily what is needed or possible.

So, I suppose I am saying that a bunch of things are going on, and one of them is that there is a stage of ego death and there are other competing ideas in there also.

A little bit like how there is the Oepdipus myth and then there is the myth of Ganesh, where the child (Ganesh) enters a realm of serious competition and drama and even hatred between his parents. IOW he is not the active creator of the problems, but someone caught in the middle - at least in some of the versions of his story.

Freud noticed myths that reinforced the story that he felt was central. Jung did this also - though he definition came up with more core stories than Freud. I see an oversimplification and also an appeal to authority in relation to the collective unconscious. Though I realize part of my response is now going where you aren’t really intending to go.

Perhaps I have takne the thread to far from your intent and I don’t want to hijack so I will leave it here. I hope I have been clear, and that even if I wandered off topic, I did also respond to the topic.

No I think that insofar as you have countered the leap from phenomenon to theory, you have facilitated my intention for this thread.

[felix_dakat]

From James Hillman the originator of post-Jungian archetypal psychology:

…Archetypal psychologizing, unlike phenomenology, does not use concepts for the categories of its vision. Psychologizing what dissolves as it specifies, first into ”Which”-- which among the many traits and moods are here being demonstrated at this moment?-- and then ultimately into “Who”-- who in me says I am ugly, makes me feel guilty; who is it in my soul that needs you so desperately? Seeing through to this who dissolves the identification with one of the many insistent voices that fill us with ideas and feelings, steering fate on its behalf. At first these persons, who are at the core of what we feel, say, and do, seem interiorized bits of our personal history. But soon they show their impersonality. For in the last instance the who refers to an archetypal figure within the complex, the dream, and the symptom.

[Aware-ness]

What are the methods to achieve wholeness? Can it be accomplished by intellectual discourse?

I think that just maybe this concern for wholeness is a modern invention/concern. I don’t think it was a concern of hunter-gathers, of stone agers. Was it a concern during pre-written-language times?

Is it a sign of our age that we’re suddenly concerned about wholeness? What has happened that has produce this need for wholeness?

[felix_dakat]

@Aware-ness

What are the methods to achieve wholeness? Can it be accomplished by intellectual discourse?

I think that just maybe this concern for wholeness is a modern invention/concern. I don’t think it was a concern of hunter-gathers, of stone agers. Was it a concern during pre-written-language times?

Is it a sign of our age that we’re suddenly concerned about wholeness? What has happened that has produce this need for wholeness?

If wholeness is achieved at all it is not achieved by a method but by a process of individuation. CG Jung did develop analytic psychology as a means of facilitating the process of individuation. But the process itself is natural.

Why do you think prehistoric humans were not concerned about wholeness? It’s a natural human process. And they did produce mandala-like circular artworks which may have been symbols of wholeness.

People have a psychological need to establish order and unity out of chaos. The duality of order & chaos is seen in the symbol of the Tao which is itself a mandala and a symbol of wholeness. The symbol of the Tao is ancient not a sudden sign of our age.

Both the Tao and the Self are symbolized by a circle which, as I said, is a mandala meaning “magic circle” in Sanskrit. The ego or ordinary mind develops after we are born. In part it comes from inside but mostly from the outside through our interactions with our parents, significant others and our environment. We introject parts of them which becomes a false self that gets enmeshed with our true self.

Part of the task in Taoism and Jung’s psychology on the way to wholeness is to let go of ego and kill the false self so that our true self will emerge. This is symbolized by the hero myth including death and rebirth narratives. Wholeness entails balancing the conscious and unconscious aspects of the psyche.

[tentative]

Is it possible that wholeness is releasing wholeness? Chuang Tzu lamented that he could find no one who had released words so that he might sit down and have a word with him. Irony? Perhaps Jungian philosophy isn’t very clear because too many words met themselves coming and going. It might be that Jung is best understood in silence and understanding ourselves in even deeper silence.

[felix_dakat]

@tentative

Is it possible that wholeness is releasing wholeness? Chuang Tzu lamented that he could find no one who had released words so that he might sit down and have a word with him. Irony? Perhaps Jungian philosophy isn’t very clear because too many words met themselves coming and going. It might be that Jung is best understood in silence and understanding ourselves in even deeper silence.

Ha!

[Aware-ness]

Interesting response. Thanks.

@felix dakat

@Aware-ness

What are the methods to achieve wholeness? Can it be accomplished by intellectual discourse?

I think that just maybe this concern for wholeness is a modern invention/concern. I don’t think it was a concern of hunter-gathers, of stone agers. Was it a concern during pre-written-language times?

Is it a sign of our age that we’re suddenly concerned about wholeness? What has happened that has produce this need for wholeness?

@felix dakat

If wholeness is achieved at all it is not achieved by a method but by a process of individuation. CG Jung did develop analytic psychology as a means of facilitating the process of individuation. But the process itself is natural.

Can you please explain what you mean by individuation and natural?

@felix dakat

Why do you think prehistoric humans were not concerned about wholeness? It’s a natural human process. And they did produce mandala-like circular artworks which may have been symbols of wholeness.

How do you know mandalas are concerning wholeness? Cave paintings at Lascaux dating 17,000 yrs ago, seem to depict the hunt, not wholeness.

@felix dakat

People have a psychological need to establish order and unity out of chaos. The duality of order & chaos is seen in the symbol of the Tao which is itself a mandala and a symbol of wholeness. The symbol of the Tao is ancient not a sudden sign of our age.

I love the Tao Te Ching, and I realize the yin/yang circle could be read into as wholeness. But it’s unquestionably dualistic ; a dualistic wholeness, if you must. Sure it’s an ancient writing, but can you show me in the Tao Te Ching where it speaks of wholeness?

And to digress : Taoism is a religion. A religion founded during the “flat earth days” ; the days when the sun and moon, et al went around the earth ; the days when weather, lightning, storms, as well as earthquakes and volcanoes, were controlled by a spook(s) ; the days when religion was very important to understand – or misunderstand – very scary mysteries. Maybe religion – such as the Tao – was an attempt to be whole with all that ; to become whole with the stars and unknown forces. Is that wholeness?

@felix dakat

Part of the task in Taoism and Jung’s psychology on the way to wholeness is to let go of ego and kill the false self so that our true self will emerge. This is symbolized by the hero myth including death and rebirth narratives. Wholeness entails balancing the conscious and unconscious aspects of the psyche.

Maybe you can show where Jung’s task is wholeness – he treated schizophrenics – but can you really speak for what the Tao’s task is concerning wholeness? Isn’t that like preachers that claim to be speaking for God?

Thanks again Catmando

[Aware-ness]

This is a cut and paste from The Essential Jung, page 332. Here Jung speaks of wholeness (emphasis mine):

“332 “UNUS MUNDUS” AND SYNCHRONICITY
There I would trespass upon all manner of religious convictions. Living in the West, I would have to say Christ instead of “self,” in the Near East it would be Khidr, in the Far East atman or Tao or the Buddha, in the Far West maybe a hare or Mondamin, and in cabalism it would be Tifereth. Our world has shrunk, and it is dawning on us that humanity is one, with one psyche. Humility is a not inconsiderable virtue which should prompt Christians, for the sake of charity ­the greatest of all virtues — to set a good example and acknowledge that though there is only one truth it speaks in many tongues, and that if we still cannot see this it is simply due to lack of understanding. No one is so godlike that he alone knows the true word. All of us gaze into that “dark glass” in which the dark myth takes shape, adumbrating the invisible truth. In this glass the eyes of the spirit glimpse an image which we call the self, fully conscious of the fact that it is an anthropomorphic image which we have merely named but not explained. By "self’ we mean psychic wholeness, but what realities underlie this concept we do not know, because psychic contents cannot be observed in their unconscious state, and moreover the psyche cannot know itself. The conscious can know the unconscious only so far as it has become conscious. We have only a very hazy idea of the changes an unconscious content undergoes in the process of becoming conscious, but no certain knowledge. The concept of psychic wholeness necessarily implies an element of transcendence on account of the existence of unconscious components. Transcen­dence in this sense is not equivalent to a metaphysical postulate or hypostasis; it claims to be no more than a borderline concept, to quote Kant.”

[felix_dakat]

@Aware-ness

Can you please explain what you mean by individuation and natural?

Given your acquaintance with CG Jung and the Tao te Ching I find your questions surprising.
C.G. Jung wrote quote” I use the term individuation to denote the process by which a person becomes a psychological in-dividual that is a separate indivisible Unity or whole.” [CW vol. 9i,p. 275]
Natural means existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

How do you know mandalas are concerning wholeness? Cave paintings at Lascaux dating 17,000 yrs ago, seem to depict the hunt, not wholeness.

According to art therapist and mental health counselor Susanne F. Fincher, we owe the re-introduction of mandalas into modern Western thought to Carl Gustav Jung, the Swiss analytical psychologist. In his pioneering exploration of the unconscious through his own art making, Jung observed the motif of the circle spontaneously appearing. The circle drawings reflected his inner state at that moment. Familiarity with the philosophical writings of India prompted Jung to adopt the word “mandala” to describe these circle drawings he and his patients made. In his autobiography, Jung wrote:
I sketched every morning in a notebook a small circular drawing, … which seemed to correspond to my inner situation at the time. … Only gradually did I discover what the mandala really is: … the Self, the wholeness of the personality, which if all goes well is harmonious.
— Carl Jung, Memories, Dreams, Reflections, pp. 195–196.
Jung recognized that the urge to make mandalas emerges during moments of intense personal growth. Their appearance indicates a profound re-balancing process is underway in the psyche. The result of the process is a more complex and better integrated personality.
The mandala serves a conservative purpose—namely, to restore a previously existing order. But it also serves the creative purpose of giving expression and form to something that does not yet exist, something new and unique. … The process is that of the ascending spiral, which grows upward while simultaneously returning again and again to the same point.
— Jungian analyst Marie-Louise von Franz, C. G. Jung: Man and His Symbols, p. 225
Creating mandalas helps stabilize, integrate, and re-order inner life.[36]
American art therapist Joan Kellogg continued in Jung’s work and created a diagnostic tool – MARI card test.[37]
According to the psychologist David Fontana, its symbolic nature can help one “to access progressively deeper levels of the unconscious, ultimately assisting the meditator to experience a mystical sense of oneness with the ultimate unity from which the cosmos in all its manifold forms arises.”[38] Wikipedia

Examples of prehistorical mandalas include:
google.com/search?hl=en&tbm … nsJNopP3pM

I love the Tao Te Ching, and I realize the yin/yang circle could be read into as wholeness. But it’s unquestionably dualistic ; a dualistic wholeness, if you must. Sure it’s an ancient writing, but can you show me in the Tao Te Ching where it speaks of wholeness?

“If you want to become whole, let yourself be partial.” Tao 22

Mitchell, Stephen. Tao Te Ching: A New English Version (Perennial Classics) (p. 25). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

And to digress : Taoism is a religion. A religion founded during the “flat earth days” ; the days when the sun and moon, et al went around the earth ; the days when weather, lightning, storms, as well as earthquakes and volcanoes, were controlled by a spook(s) ; the days when religion was very important to understand – or misunderstand – very scary mysteries. Maybe religion – such as the Tao – was an attempt to be whole with all that ; to become whole with the stars and unknown forces. Is that wholeness?

The human organism is the product of 3.5 billion years of evolution. Psychologically we have changed very little since the Tao Te Ching was written. The collective unconscious is essentially the same. There are “unknown forces” within us that can only be read indirectly from the images that arise spontaneous to mind in dreams and other mental phenomena. Modern culture has taught us to ignore this stuff. Jungian and archetypal psychology directs us to become conscious of them.

Maybe you can show where Jung’s task is wholeness – he treated schizophrenics – but can you really speak for what the Tao’s task is concerning wholeness? Isn’t that like preachers that claim to be speaking for God?
[/quote]

This is a cut and paste from The Essential Jung, page 332. Here Jung speaks of wholeness (emphasis mine):

“332 “UNUS MUNDUS” AND SYNCHRONICITY
There I would trespass upon all manner of religious convictions. Living in the West, I would have to say Christ instead of “self,” in the Near East it would be Khidr, in the Far East atman or Tao or the Buddha, in the Far West maybe a hare or Mondamin, and in cabalism it would be Tifereth. Our world has shrunk, and it is dawning on us that humanity is one, with one psyche. Humility is a not inconsiderable virtue which should prompt Christians, for the sake of charity ­the greatest of all virtues — to set a good example and acknowledge that though there is only one truth it speaks in many tongues, and that if we still cannot see this it is simply due to lack of understanding. No one is so godlike that he alone knows the true word. All of us gaze into that “dark glass” in which the dark myth takes shape, adumbrating the invisible truth. In this glass the eyes of the spirit glimpse an image which we call the self, fully conscious of the fact that it is an anthropomorphic image which we have merely named but not explained. By "self’ we mean psychic wholeness, but what realities underlie this concept we do not know, because psychic contents cannot be observed in their unconscious state, and moreover the psyche cannot know itself. The conscious can know the unconscious only so far as it has become conscious. We have only a very hazy idea of the changes an unconscious content undergoes in the process of becoming conscious, but no certain knowledge. The concept of psychic wholeness necessarily implies an element of transcendence on account of the existence of unconscious components. Transcen­dence in this sense is not equivalent to a metaphysical postulate or hypostasis; it claims to be no more than a borderline concept, to quote Kant.”

“Only in being lived by the Tao can you be truly yourself.” Tao 22

Mitchell, Stephen. Tao Te Ching: A New English Version (Perennial Classics) (p. 26). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

[felix_dakat]

Happy Easter everyone! Hooray for fertility and rebirth!

[MagsJ (..a chic geek)]

.
For you, Felix

[felix_dakat]

Thank you MagsJ. What a hoot!

[Fixed_Cross]

“If you want to become whole, let yourself be partial.” Tao 22

Mitchell, Stephen. Tao Te Ching: A New English Version (Perennial Classics) (p. 25). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

This is very interesting.
This is what I arrived at in my study of the kabbalic sephira Hod. The process of creation from God to World must undergo at one point a splintering, so as for individual beings to be able to exist.

So, first we would have to immerse ourselves in acceptance of our limits, as splinters of God lacking the power to oversee the Whole of Being, and only then can we become whole as parts of being.

[felix_dakat]

@Fixed Cross

“If you want to become whole, let yourself be partial.” Tao 22

Mitchell, Stephen. Tao Te Ching: A New English Version (Perennial Classics) (p. 25). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

This is very interesting.
This is what I arrived at in my study of the kabbalic sephira Hod. The process of creation from God to World must undergo at one point a splintering, so as for individual beings to be able to exist.

So, first we would have to immerse ourselves in acceptance of our limits, as splinters of God lacking the power to oversee the Whole of Being, and only then can we become whole as parts of being.

Is this the teaching you’re referring to?

In sixteenth-century Safed, the Kabbalist Isaac Luria bound together the search for the true creation story with the search for life’s meaning. Luria asked this question: If before the beginning God was everywhere, then how could there have been room for the creation to expand? Rather than thinking of an initial expansion from a point, Luria turned the idea inside out and thought of God initially withdrawing from a point—going into “self-exile”—creating empty space for the universe, which would then be inside Himself.

And in this way Luria made a connection between an abstract process of creation and the meaning of his time in history. According to Luria, it is the absence of God from the space that makes evil possible within it. But God is not completely absent: as He withdrew, His divine light poured into the divine vessels that were the foundations of the world. The divine light was so powerful that the vessels shattered. Not even God’s own creation could withstand His light. And consequently this world God made is cracked and broken and in need of repair. But every shard of the vessels carries a spark of divine light, and these sparks lie scattered in unlikely places, often buried under suffering and injustice.

The purpose of life for the Kabbalistic community was to find the sparks and raise them up, and in this way to help God repair the world. Tzimtzum was the name for God’s act of withdrawing into self-exile. Shevirah was the shattering of the vessels into countless pieces, each with its spark of divine light. Tikkun was the cosmic purpose of repairing the world by finding and bringing together the divine sparks.

Primack, Joel R… The View From the Center of the Universe: Discovering Our Extraordinary Place in the Cosmos (pp. 201-202). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

The divine spark is, no doubt, an archetypal image. The Gnostics wrote of it. It is central to Quakerism as well.

[Fixed_Cross]

Not quite, I am not a Lurianic kabbalist, I am a Merkabatic one, meaning experimental-empirical rather than theoretical; I am only studying on the inner planes, in meditations which last several hours each day of study. The results are very far from intellectual and it takes much time to formulate verbal thoughts about them.
Some conclusions do overlap with Luria. But what I mean with separation is not the same as what he means with Isolation.

He speaks of the ascent from the Earth up to God, I speak of Gods will descending down to become the material world. Separation is a painful necessity God has to face in the creation process.

Ive been undertaking a detailed lecture series of the Tree of Life since May 2017, last year I arrived at Hod and the question of Separation which includes the matter of the Devil, and a month or so back I completed the video about it.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6TaF-VuuUk[/youtube]

The difference is, Merkabatics only take the Tree of Life as it is presented, as beginning in the Boundless Light and completing in the Kingdom - I do not postulate “the adept” (nor consider his ascent in the ontological terms of the tree) - even though I don’t deny that I am one. I am not quite as interested in the role of the individual as in the methods of God.