Jungian Dream Analysis: Roots of Religion and How the Unconscious 'Sees' Our Personal Future.

page: 1
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Apologies for the long read, but the message is indeed worth the effort.

I'm afraid there is no link, so the entire text as it appears in the book applicable requires posting

CG Jung, who passed away on June 6, 1961, had a passion. He believed that the dreams we all have are not just a mish-mash of 'disposable information', but that they were windows through which we could see not just ourselves as we are in our every day life, but also the very distant past of all of humanity. They prepare us spiritually as well, for our own personal demise.

What follows is the root of all faiths everywhere. It comes not from some remote unattainable place as is believed by so many today, they come from within ourselves- our 'heart and soul'. They are not reserved for psychotropic ingesting shaman or priests, but are available to any who will pay attention to their dreams or day-dreams.


The example used is from the popular book, MAN AND HIS SYMBOLS Part 1: Approaching the Unconscious, by CG Jung and ML von Franz, JL Henderson, J jacobi and A Jaffe, published by Dell [Copyright 1964 Aldus Books, Limited, London (ISBN: 0-440-35183-5)



Pages 58 - 64

A very important case came to me from a man who was himself a psychiatrist. One day he brought me a handwritten booklet he had received as a Christmas present from his 10-year old daughter. It contained a whole series of dreams she had when she was eight. They made up the weirdest series of dreams that I had ever seen, and I could well understand why her father was more than just puzzled by them. Though childlike, they were uncanny, and they contained images whose origin was wholly incomprehensible to the father. Here are the relevant motifs from the dreams:

1. "The evil animal," a snakelike monster with many horns, kills and devours all other animals. But God comes from the four corners, being in fact four seperate gods, and gives rebirth to all the dead animals.

2. An ascent into heaven, where pagan dances are being celebrated; and a descent into hell, where angels are doing good deeds.

3. A horde of small animals frightens the dreamer. The animals increase to a tremendous size, and one of them devours the little girl.

4. A small mouse is penetrated by worms, snakes, fishes and human beings. Thus the mouse becomes a human. This portrays the four stages of the evolution of mankind.

5. A drop of water is seen, as it appears when looked at through a microscope. The girl sees that the drop is full of tree branches. This portrays the origin of the world.

6. A bad boy has a clod of earth and throws bits of it at everyone who passes. In this way all the passer-by become bad.

7. A drunken woman falls into the water and comes out renewed and sober.

8. The scene is America, where many people are rolling on an ant heap, attacked by the ants. The dreamer, in a panic, falls into a river.

9. There is a desert on the moon where the dreamer sinks so deeply into the ground that she reaches hell.

10. In this dream the girl has a vision of a luminous ball. She touches it. Vapours emanate from it. A man comes out and kills her.

11. The girl dreams she is dangerously ill. Suddenly birds come out of her skin and cover her completely.

12. Swarms of gnats obscure the sun, the moon and all the stars except one. That star falls upon the dreamer.

In the unabridged German original, each dream begins with the words of the old fairy tale: "Once upon a time...." By these words the little dreamer suggests that she feels as if each dream were a sort of fairy tale, which she wants to tell her father as a Christmas present. The father tried to explain the dreams in terms of their context. But he could not do so, for there seemed to be no personal associations to them.

The possibility that these dreams were conscious elaborations can of course be ruled out only by someone who knows the child well enough to be absolutely sure of her truthfulness. (They would, however, remain a challenge to our understanding even if they were fantasies.) In this case, the father was convinced that the dreams were authentic, and I have no reason to doubt it. I knew the little girl myself, but this was before she gave her dreams to her father, so that I had no chance to ask her about them. She lived abroad and died of an infectious disease about a year after that Christmas.



[NOTE: the OP has been trimmed into three parts for quoting purposes. Two sections can be read further down on the page]








[edit on 27/2/08 by masqua]




posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 05:42 AM
link   
I'm not surprised that there are no comments to the above, but the star is greatly appreciated for all that typing.



It's understandable because an observation such as Jung proposes would cut all those Benny Hinn clones out of the mix. Just think... you are in contact with your Creator every day and night, never alone, and, best of all, none of the trappings of religion are needed; no plates getting passed around, no Tammy Faye tears besmirching powdered cheeks with mascara. All those money/power grubbing individuals getting rich off religions just may be, if Jung is right, completely superfluous.

Keep buying into the lies of the middle-men who wish to sell you salvation, because they, at the very least, make you aware of the presence of God.

They've attached a price tag and made God a commodity to be sold.

Like sat/cable TV, there's 500 channels and nothing on.

edit for punctuation


[edit on 24/2/08 by masqua]



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 06:11 AM
link   
Hi Masqua, I just tried to quote a part of what you have offered up, but entire post vanished so I will type what jumped out at me.

The collective consciousness and Guardian Angels gels with me. After my insight from meditation I certainly feel the my higher self is connected to everyone.

Very interesting thread.



lol struggling today to get my words out! - just finished work so...that is my excuse




[edit on 24-2-2008 by Thurisaz]



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 06:25 AM
link   
Hitting the quote button on the OP may be too much for most 'character limits', Thurisaz. At least I thinkthat may be the problem.

I could cut it into two or three parts to make it easier.

Thanks for the heads up on this.



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 06:33 AM
link   
(This portion was originally part of the OP)


Her dreams have a decidedly peculiar character. Their leading thoughts are markedly philosophic in concept. The first one, for instance, speaks of an evil monster killing other animals, but God gives rebirth to them all through divine Apokatastasis, or restitution. In the Western world this idea is known through the Christian tradition. It can be found in Acts of the Apostles III:21: "[Christ] whom the heaven must receive until the time of restitution of all things...." The early Greek Fathers of the Church (for instance, Origen) particularly insisted upon the idea that, at the end of time, everything will be restored by the Redeemer to its original and perfect state.

But, according to Matthew XVII:11, there was already an old Jewish tradition that Elias "truly shall first come, and restore all things." I Corinthians XV:22 refers to the same idea in the following words: "For as in Adam, all things die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

One might guess that the child had encountered this thought in her religious education. But she had very little religious background. Her parents were Protestant in name; but in fact they knew the bible only in hearsay. It is particularly unlikely that the recondite image of Apokatastasis had been explained to the little girl. Certainy her father had never heard of this mythical idea.

Nine of the 12 dreams are influenced by the theme of destruction and restoration. And none of these dreams shows traces of specific Christian education or influence. On the contrary, they are more closely related to primitive myths. This relation is corroborated by the other motif- the "cosmogonic myth" (the creation of the world and of man) that appears in the fourth and fifth dreams. The same connection is found in I Corinthians XV :22, which I have just quoted. In this passage too, Adam and christ (death and resurrection) are linked together.

The general idea of Christ the Redeemer belongs to the world-wide and pre-Christ theme of the hero and rescuer who, although he has been devoured by a monster, appears again in a miraculous way, having overcome whatever monster it was that swallowed him. When and where such a motif originated, nobody knows. We do not even know how to go about investigating the problem. The one apparent certainty is that every generation seems to have known it as a tradition handed down from some preceding time. Thus we can safely assume that it "originated" at a period when man did not yet know that he possesed a hero myth; in an age, that is to say, when he did not yet consciously reflect on what he was saying. The hero figure is an archetype, which has existed since time immemorial.

The production of archetypes by children is especially significant, because one can sometimes be quite certain that a child has had no direct access to the tradition concerned. In this case, the girl's family had no more than a superficial acquaintance with the christian tradition. Christian themes may, of course, be represented by such ideas as God, angels, heaven, hell, and evil. But the way in which they are treated by this child points to a totally non-Christian origin.

Let us take the first dream of the God who really consists of the four gods coming from the "four corners." The corners of what? There is no room mentioned in the dream. A room would not even fit with the picture of what is obviously a cosmic event, in which the Universal Being himself intervenes. The quarternary ( or element of "fourness") itself is a strange idea, but one that plays a great role in many religions and philosophies. In the christian religion, it has been superceded by the Trinity, a notion that we must assume was known to the child. But who in an ordinairy middle-class family of today would be likely to know of a divine quaternary? It is an idea that was once fairly familiar among students of the Hermetic philosophy in the Middle Ages, but it petered with the beginning of the 18th century, and has been entirely obsolete for at least 200 years. Where, then, did the little girl pick it up? From Ezekiels vision? But there is no Christian teachin teaching that identifies the seraphim with God.

The same question may be asked about the horned serpent. In the Bible, it is true, there are many horned animals- in the Book of Revelation, for instance. But all these seem to be quadruped, although their overlord is the dragon, the Greek word for which (drakon) also means serpent. The horned serpent appears in 16th century Latin alchemy as the quadricornutus serpens (four horned serpent), a symbol of Mercury and an antagonist of the Christian Trinity. But this is an obscure reference. So far as I can discover, it is made by only one author and this child had no way of knowing it.



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 06:34 AM
link   
(This portion is the third and final part of what originally was the OP)


In the second dream, a motif appears that is definitely non-Christian and that contains a reversal of accepted values- for instance, pagan dances by men in heaven and good deeds by angels in hell. This symbol suggests a relativity of moral values. where did the child find such a revolutionary notion, worthy of Nietzsche's genius?

these questions lead us to another: What is the compensatory meaning of these dreams, to which the little girl obviously attributed so much importance that she presented them to her father as a Christmas present?

If the dreamer had been a primitive medicine man, one could reasonably assume that they represent variations of the themes of death, of resurrection or restitution, of the origin of the world, the creation of man and the relativity of values. But one might give up such dreams as hopelessly difficult if one tried to interpret them from a personal level. They undoubtedly contain "collective images" and they are in a way analogous to the doctrines taught to young people in primitive tribes when they are about to be initiated as men. At such times they learn about what God, or the gods, or the "founding" animals have done, how the world and man was created, how the end of the world will come and the meaning of death. Is there any occasion when we, in Christian civilization, hand out similar instructions? There is: in adolescence. But many begin to think again of such things like this in an old age, at the approach of death.

The little girl, as it happened, was in both these situations. She was approaching puberty and, at the same time, the end of her life. Little or nothing in the symbolism of her dreams points to the beginning of a normal adult life, but there are many allusions to destruction and restoration. When I first read her dreams, indeed, I had the uncanny feeling that they suggested impending disaster. The reason I felt that was the peculiar nature of the compensation that I deduced from the symbolism. It was the opposite of what one would suspect to find in the consciousness of a girl of that age.

These dreams open up a new and rather terrifying aspect of life and death. One would expect to find such images in an aging person who looks back upon life, rather than be given them by a child who would normally be looking forward. Their atmosphere recalls the old Roman saying, "Life is but a short dream," rather than the joy and exuberance of its springtime. for this child's life was like a ver sacrum vovendum (the vow of vernal sacrifice), as the Roman poet puts it. Experience shows that the approach of death casts an adumbratio (an anticipatory shadow) over the life and dreams of the victim. Even an altar in Christian churches represents, on one hand, a tomb, and on the other, a place of resurrection- the transformation of death into eternal life.

Such are the dreams brought home to the child. they are preparation for death, expressed through short stories, like the tales told at primitive initiations or the Koans of Zen Buddhism. This message is unlike the orthodox christian doctrine and more like ancient primitive thought. It seems to have originated outside historical tradition in the long-forgotten psychic sources, that, since pre-historic times, have nourished philosophical and religious speculations about life and death.


The unconscious is our constant companion... like a guardian angel, watching over and preparing us for life's bumpy ride. It talks to us in our dreams while our conscious mind is taking a break from the hectic reality of our days. Our guardian angel never leaves us and watches every thing we think, say and do. Jung calls this our personal unconscious.

But, there's more... your personal guardian angel is also in contact with every other guardian angel everywhere else. This notion is called the collective unconscious and it is very much like the all knowing God who is everywhere at once. The collective unconscious remembers every thought of everyone who has ever lived and your personal guardian angel is also informed of what is to become of you in the future. But the only way it has to communicate to you is through those moments when your consciousness is off-guard... in dreams or when you're concentrating on simple tasks such as hoeing a potato patch (for instance). It doesn't use words, it uses imagery and symbols to communicate.

Pay attention to your dreams... imo, it is God talking to you. It may not be your demise it is hinting at... it may be what you need to do for success and happinness in your long life and into your old age.

comments?



[edit on 24/2/08 by masqua]



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 06:45 AM
link   
Oh no worries, I have just copied it without quoting it



But, there's more... your personal guardian angel is also in contact with every other guardian angel everywhere else. This notion is called the collective unconscious and it is very much like the all knowing God who is everywhere at once. The collective unconscious remembers every thought of everyone who has ever lived and your personal guardian angel is also informed of what is to become of you in the future. But the only way it has to communicate to you is through those moments when your consciousness is off-guard... in dreams or when you're concentrating on simple tasks such as hoeing a potato patch (for instance). It doesn't use words, it uses imagery and symbols to communicate.


This is great stuff! Most of my threads are along these lines. I am very interested in this area of study.

I feel there is so much personal and spiritual growth that comes from focusing on dreams and meditations.

At least even being open to Spirit Guides and Angels.

If people really utilised this, took advantage of this power... wow! All you need is faith and the belief that your Guardian Angel and God are with you.

I went to see this guy in Melbourne years ago, Louise Hay & Deepak Chopra (fantastic seminar - life changing stuff!)

Michael Domeyko Rowland = This guy relies on letting others (Angels, his Higher Self) do the footwork and sits back and lets it happen. It really is amazing stuff and to see how it works is even more astonishing.

And as for the symbols, well what does Edwards rely on when communicating with Spirits? Symbols. Most of the time, symbols are the only thing Mediums have to go with.

Sometimes the symbols are hard to understand but I feel the more you focus on trying to understand, the quicker answers come.

Anyway, great thread!



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 06:48 AM
link   
lol oh had to come back. Just had an after thought.

I think the thing that I really liked about this is how God/Gaurdian Angels are working with you even when you are unconscious

so, that is great. It isn't easy to be 'conscious' all the time...so thank God when we are unconscious, we get the help!

Now I am going... lol



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thurisaz
Sometimes the symbols are hard to understand but I feel the more you focus on trying to understand, the quicker answers come.



So true! The symbols which are presented in dreams are difficult to specifically pin down to any one cogent message. They are not like the letters of the alphabet, combined to make words and sentences to be read like a book. Freud and Jung somewhat disagree on this, muddying the waters a bit. Jung suggests that particular dream symbols or images vary in meaning to different people. They are dependent on the life experience of each individual.

To make things even more difficult, there is this;


(from MAN AND HIS SYMBOLS, page 17)

It is easy to understand why dreamers tend to ignore and even deny the message of their dreams. consciousness naturally resists anything unconscious and unknown. I have already pointed out the existence among primitive peoples of what anthropologists call "misoneism," a deep and supersticious fear of novelty. The primitives manifest all the reactions of the animal against untoward events. but "civilized" man reacts to new ideas in much the same way, erecting psychological barriers to protect him from the shock of facing something new. This can easily be observed in any individuals reaction to his own dreams when obliged to admit a surprising thought. Many pioneers in philosophy, science, and even literature have been victim of the innate conservatism of their contemporaries. Psychology is one of the youngest of the sciences; because it attempts to deal with the working of the unconscious, it has inevitably encountered misoneism in an extreme form.


Darwin's reluctance to publish his greatest work comes to mind in the statement above. It takes a brave effort to go against the grain, especially when it puts into jeopardy thousands of years of accepted dogma. To publicly state something which has become obvious to a researcher, but which also turns accepted dogma on its head, is a dangerous game which even today can easily become a life threatening experience. Truth, at times, is fought with grim-faced and deadly determination.

It has been the better part of a century since Freud and Jung initially explored the effects of the unconscious. Their findings threaten promoters of long established doctrines. They will fight tooth and nail to keep their stranglehold on anything which might somehow undermine their power.



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
It takes a brave effort to go against the grain, especially when it puts into jeopardy thousands of years of accepted dogma.


Absolutely! It can be Professional Suicide as many Scholars have discovered!


To publicly state something which has become obvious to a researcher, but which also turns accepted dogma on its head, is a dangerous game which even today can easily become a life threatening experience.


Yes and it is so disappointing. I feel that is the contemporary obstacle, the dogma is not prepared to evolve. It is so frustrating when research has answers but no one wants to embrace them.


Their findings threaten promoters of long established doctrines. They will fight tooth and nail to keep their stranglehold on anything which might somehow undermine their power.


I have always liked what Jung has contributed. Freud on the other hand, I put down for good after reading his work on sexual disorders. I feel he had quite a few of his own.


Yanno, I suppose as I have nothing to lose from embracing this, it is easy. I guess there are a lot of people or organisations who would rather stay in their comfort zone...so just don't rock the boat!



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 09:47 AM
link   
The conclusions make sense to me, but I don't find the girl's dreams that surprising or even unusual relative to the dreams my kids tell me. Neither do I believe that the interpretations of them are necessarily accurate as much as one person reaching for specificity from the dreams of another. I've often found that to be a mistake when helping people understand their dreams. Often, when I work with someone to help them understand a dream (close friends/family consider me helpful in that way), their personal insight provides the crucial information to make things meaningful for them, which I believe is the true purpose of dreams.

I believe that we have a personal subconscious and probably a collective subconscious (which I think is not just humans). While I think someone with experience can help another interpret their dreams and how they can be useful, I don't believe there is a straightforward, common template that can be used. Your personal subconscious speaks to you in ways that are meaningful more to you than anyone else.



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 09:56 AM
link   
I was able to experience aboriginal dreamtime cosmology and spirituality in a marvellous new light after learning some of Jung's ideas.

In so many ways it is superior to western religions. It adequately prepares its people for life's challenges (spiritually and physically), teaches the interconnectedness of everything (and therefore respect for life and environment), and has a concept of spacetime that our best quantum physicists are still trying to catch up with... that time exists simultaneously linear and eternal. Aboriginal spirituality really is stunning once you glimpse its sophisticated simplicity.

Yet most Australians only briefly encounter the superficial 'parables' (dreamtime legends), and dismiss it all as fanciful... something akin to aliens judging western civilisation based on our fairy tales.

So yeah, Jung is the 'swiss army knife' of psychology and the esoteric



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shar_Chi
So yeah, Jung is the 'swiss army knife' of psychology and the esoteric


He may have been translating some of his ideas directly from esoteric texts and taking credit for them as well.

Personally I like his work. He opened new doors and changed modern perceptions to a far closer version of the ancient wisdom that had previously been rejected.

On an infrequent basis, I have had the need to use his symbol work with the subconscious to do basic reprogramming in damaged individuals. Its all uncharted waters. Very surprisingly the individuals developed positive self esteem building traits that were neither extreme or overboard, but just at the right level needed. Several years after the initial experiments they are all doing well and very happy with the changes in their lives. It seems there are natural levels of subconscious thought and even mild levels of interaction through symbols can restore the default values, in a person damaged by experiences.

This is wisdom and I sincerely hope that someone will find it that is doing this sort of work and develop fully it into a standard treatment. Jung dried and prepared the seeds, others have prepared the soil, still others have planted and sprouted them. Its up to the rest to water and take care of them so they yeild.



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   
I am a creative (some call artsy) individual and have a very active dream life. While I don't completely understand all of this (never studied Jung), I am interested in what our dreams do to help us in our waking life. I also would like to know why some people dream alot and others don't seem to ever dream at all (or at least don't ever remember them).

Is it possible that some of us have a more natural in-born connection to our subconsciousness and others don't?

Where can I find reliable information on the internet about dream interpretation that isn't some whack-job on the internet's idea of making money? Is there a place to get reliable information about symbols that isn't just one person's interpretation of them?



posted on Feb, 25 2008 @ 08:37 PM
link   
First of all, thanks, everyone, for the thoughtful comments.


by Thurisaz

I have always liked what Jung has contributed. Freud on the other hand, I put down for good after reading his work on sexual disorders. I feel he had quite a few of his own.


Yes, but so did Jung.
For some reason which I have yet to pin down in any of his books, he seems to have a dismissive attitude toward women. I put it down to his love of Nietzsche's writings
. Jung DID think that his mother was much more 'in tune' with the world than his father was. (Another thread, maybe)

Jung also distanced himself from Freud after a disagreement about the development of neurosis. It boiled down to Freud's insistence that the childhood years were their primary source. Sexual desire for mom, seeing dad as a rival- these types of desires would fill a child with unfulfilled hopes and dashed dreams, eventually replaced by shame. Jung, on the other hand, believed neurosis could develop from crisis happening at any time during a life journey.

Perhaps the most telling quote is the following;


from Memories, Dreams and Reflections by CG Jung published by Vintage Books, Random House, New York

pages 152-153

Freud never asked himself why he was compelled to talk continually of sex, why this idea had taken such possession of him. He remained unaware that his "monotony of interpretation' expressed a flight from himself...

-snip-

There was nothing to be done about this one-sidedness of Freuds's. Perhaps some inner experience of his own might have opened his eyes; but then his intellect would have reduced any such experience to "mere sexuality" or "psychosexuality." He remained the victim of the one aspect he could recognize, and for that reason I see him as a tragic figure; for he was a great man, and what is more, a man in the grip of his daimon.


Both Freud and Jung are important,though, as Jung himself admits in the quote above. Both contributed much to each other, even after their 'falling out'. Psychology without Freud would be a poorer subject indeed and many psychologists treat their patients using the research developed by both.


from the same source - page 168

Freud's greatest achievement probably consisted in taking neurotic patients seriously and entering into their peculiar individual psychology. He had the courage to let the case material speak for itself, and in this way was able to penetrate into the real psychology of his patients. He saw with the patient's eyes, so to speak, and so reached a deeper understanding of mental illness than had hithero been possible.


Yes... before Freud, notes were kept to measure either a return from madness or it's opposite. No-one tried to figure out why.



-------------------------


by lifestudent

The conclusions make sense to me, but I don't find the girl's dreams that surprising or even unusual relative to the dreams my kids tell me. Neither do I believe that the interpretations of them are necessarily accurate as much as one person reaching for specificity from the dreams of another. I've often found that to be a mistake when helping people understand their dreams. Often, when I work with someone to help them understand a dream (close friends/family consider me helpful in that way), their personal insight provides the crucial information to make things meaningful for them, which I believe is the true purpose of dreams.


The interpretation of dreams is a sticky thing to attempt. There are so many variables that it would almost be impossible for a layman to attempt. I'm no expert myself, even though I've been reading and interested in Jung since the 60's. I've read Freud a bit, but like Thurizas above, found the stress on sexual matters a bit much and dispensed with any further study.

On the interpretations of the child's dreams, it would seem to me that Jung is a far more dependable interpreter than most others. However, you are right in one thing... it would be a mistake to assume that Freud or Jung are the end all and be all of dream interpretation... nor any other psychologist. The most important thing to take away from any interpretation of your dreams is 'what is sensible' to you. Psychologists are like fishermen casting their nets onto the water (our psyche). The nets sinks into unknown/unseen territory and it is a fortunate event that a should a fish be caught. No-one else but the patient can see that there is a fish in the net. The fisherman doesn't know if it's a rubber boot or a trout.

I hope that analogy makes sense... (?)


I believe that we have a personal subconscious and probably a collective subconscious (which I think is not just humans). While I think someone with experience can help another interpret their dreams and how they can be useful, I don't believe there is a straightforward, common template that can be used. Your personal subconscious speaks to you in ways that are meaningful more to you than anyone else.


Exactly!!! I can't agree more and so does Jung;


(from the same source as above in this post)

page 311-312

... the unconscious knows more than the consciousness does; but it is knowledge of a special sort, knowledge in eternity, usually without reference to the here and now, not couched in the language of the intellect. Only when we let its statements amplify themselves [...] does it come within range of our understanding; only then does a new aspect become perceptible to us. This process is convincingly repeated in every successful dream analysis. That is why it is so important not to have any preconceived, doctrinaire opinions about the statements made by dreams. As soon as a "monotony of interpretation" strikes us, we klnow that our approach has become doctrinaire and hence sterile.


Jung often used his own dreams to find answers to the dreams of his patients. Quirky stuff, eh?

BTW... I also do not think it's just humans, but that is connected to personal experiences in my own life. Definitely worth the study, imo.

-----------------------------


by Shar_Chi

I was able to experience aboriginal dreamtime cosmology and spirituality in a marvellous new light after learning some of Jung's ideas.

It's a remarkable co-incidence that we both share in this. I came to Jung during the 60's and was fascinated by what he had to say, but it wasn't until the 70's that I became involved with a number of Native American people who taught me much about their beliefs. Over the years, I have been very fortunate to spend time with a Dene storyteller, an Ojibwe healer and the spiritual chief of all American tribes; William Commanda. What these people have taught me has done much to establish Jung as an authority for me.

In so many ways it is superior to western religions. It adequately prepares its people for life's challenges (spiritually and physically), teaches the interconnectedness of everything (and therefore respect for life and environment), and has a concept of spacetime that our best quantum physicists are still trying to catch up with... that time exists simultaneously linear and eternal. Aboriginal spirituality really is stunning once you glimpse its sophisticated simplicity.

Yet most Australians only briefly encounter the superficial 'parables' (dreamtime legends), and dismiss it all as fanciful... something akin to aliens judging western civilisation based on our fairy tales.

So yeah, Jung is the 'swiss army knife' of psychology and the esoteric


It's a remarkable co-incidence that we both share in this. I came to Jung during the 60's and was fascinated by what he had to say, but it wasn't until the 70's that I became involved with a number of Native American people who taught me much about their beliefs. Over the years, I have been very fortunate to spend time with a Dene storyteller, an Ojibwe healer and the spiritual chief of all the American tribes; William Commanda (Google, pls.). What these people have taught me has done much to establish Jung as an authority. He wrote a lot about his interactions with Native Americans, btw, and none of it in a negative way.


from the same source, pages 247-248 [A conversation between Ochwiay Biano (Mountain Lake), a Pueblo Indian chief and Jung];

"See," Ochwiay Biano said, "how cruel the whites look. Their lips are thin, their noses sharp, their faces furrowed and distorted by folds. their eyes have a staring expression; they always want something. what are they seeking? The whites always want something; they are always uneasy and restless. We do not know what they want. We do not understand them. We think that they are mad."

I asked him why he thought the whites were all mad.

"They say that they think with their heads," he replied.

"Why, of course. What do you think with?" I asked him in surprise.

"We think here," he said, indicating his heart.







---------------------------------


by Illahee

He may have been translating some of his ideas directly from esoteric texts and taking credit for them as well.


It's a fact that Jung extensively researched esoteric texts. In fact, his thinking is dripping with references to even the most obscure of them. He has also written many books on the subject and I have two of the more pertinent books on my desk right now... Alchemical Studies and Psychology and Alchemy. I don't think there's a book of his that does not, in some way, touch upon the topic. So, I completely agree with you that many of his ideas come from those dusty centuries-old tomes wrapped in leather but I would question the charge of plagiarism you are hinting at. I believe he would be incensed at the notion if he were still living and reading your quote.


Personally I like his work. He opened new doors and changed modern perceptions to a far closer version of the ancient wisdom that had previously been rejected.


Agreed.


On an infrequent basis, I have had the need to use his symbol work with the subconscious to do basic reprogramming in damaged individuals. Its all uncharted waters.


Agreed again. Psychology has just been born , bawling like a baby and still needs much good parenting.



Jung dried and prepared the seeds, others have prepared the soil, still others have planted and sprouted them. Its up to the rest to water and take care of them so they yeild.


Nicely stated. Jung would also agree with your assessment and insightful analogy. Don't forget about Freud's contributions, though.

----------------------------------


by idle_rocker

I am a creative (some call artsy) individual and have a very active dream life. While I don't completely understand all of this (never studied Jung), I am interested in what our dreams do to help us in our waking life. I also would like to know why some people dream alot and others don't seem to ever dream at all (or at least don't ever remember them).

Is it possible that some of us have a more natural in-born connection to our subconsciousness and others don't?

Where can I find reliable information on the internet about dream interpretation that isn't some whack-job on the internet's idea of making money? Is there a place to get reliable information about symbols that isn't just one person's interpretation of them?


I've actually never tried to find an on-line source for lists of archetypes that could be used as a standard for dream interpretation. I have, though, gotten hold of a contemporary book that I feel is quite good and based on the Freud/Jung interpretations.

A Dictionary of Dream Symbols

www.amazon.com...

Eric Akroyd includes an excellent synopsis of Freud and Jung, how they came to their conclusions about dream symbols and also contains an extensive alphabetical list of archetypes with multiple applications of each one. I like it a lot.


A couple of links for you...

studiocleo.com...
www.mythosandlogos.com...

BTW... I'm an artsy-fartsy type too

www.belowtopsecret.com...


------------------------------

So, does anyone else believe, as I do, that the collective unconscious just might be the mind of God and that It has the power to 'see' the future and tell it to us through the medium of our dreams?



[edits for spelling, punctuation and adding a link]

[edit on 25/2/08 by masqua]



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 

"So, does anyone else believe, as I do, that the collective unconscious just might be the mind of God and that It has the power to 'see' the future and tell it to us through the medium of our dreams?"
Sorry, I haven't quite figured out how to take just a part of a quote and respond to it yet (I'm new to ATS), but here we go:


I have a similar belief (although I can't really call it a belief because it's not firm yet), but I have been thinking that our dreams give us insight into the mind of God and possibly a previous existence. I don't believe in reincarnation so I don't mean previous life in that regard, but we had to exist in some form of consiousness before we were born of this earth.

God says he knew us before we were born. Also, Christianity believes that when we die we go "home" to be with God. Going back home would imply that we left home for some reason. Haven't figured out why that is yet, unless maybe we were kicked out...lol...and for that I couldn't quite blame him. We are a funny lot.

Anyway, yes, I agree that our dreams could possibly be a doorway into memories of a life we once lived with God. I know it's a little off-the-wall, but then again, so am I.


Oh, thanks for the links, BTW. Can't wait to read them!

[edit on 2/26/2008 by idle_rocker]



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 11:46 PM
link   
My understanding of the collective subconscious is more about how the human mind has evolved in a way that we all share the same basic architecture of the subconscious. This gives rise to shared symbolic references, naturally compatible body language etc. Kind of like how we all experience sound and colour the same way (mostly) we also experience the subconscious in a similar empathetic way. I don't believe Jung meant this concept to be considered as some kind of interconnected 'akashic record'.



posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 03:33 PM
link   

by idle_rocker


Sorry, I haven't quite figured out how to take just a part of a quote and respond to it yet...


hopefully this will be of some help for you:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The best way is to either hit the 'Reply to' or 'Quote' buttons in the top right hand corner of the post you wish to answer. If you hit the 'quote' button on a huge post, just delete the portions you'd rather not address and leave in the pertinent bits.


...I have been thinking that our dreams give us insight into the mind of God and possibly a previous existence. I don't believe in reincarnation so I don't mean previous life in that regard, but we had to exist in some form of consiousness before we were born of this earth.


I DO believe in re-incarnation, but only due to a dream I had as a very young child (Freud would jump at that one
). I was only about 5 at the time, but had dreamt of the death of another small child. The image haunts me to this day and has shaped my belief in God ever since. The circumstance involved in this dream is concurrent with how a large group of people would react if, say, they were being gassed in an airtight room. Children often were covered with the bodies of adults, either to protection them from the deadly fumes or because adults passed out and merely fell upon them. The child in my dream struggled out from under the pile of bodies only to succumb to the gas as he did so.

For me to have had such a dream at age 5 is not normal. There is no way I could have known about the gas chambers, but the actuality of how people reacted in the gas chambers is well documented; small children often survived if they were covered in such a way that the gas could not reach them. I was born in 1946, in Holland.

This dream, to me at least, proves that something passed between that unfortunate young soul who suffered death and myself. Their consciousness was passed on to me.



God says he knew us before we were born. Also, Christianity believes that when we die we go "home" to be with God. Going back home would imply that we left home for some reason. Haven't figured out why that is yet, unless maybe we were kicked out...lol...and for that I couldn't quite blame him. We are a funny lot.


CG Jung never denounced the primary belief which all Christians hold, but was no Christian himself even though his father was very involved with the Church (a parson). I am of the same mind, being an agnostic. I believe in God but do not believe in the seperation of God and the human soul. God, whether referred to as a male, a female or an asexual being, is the product of our desire to make deity in our own human form. This is also wrong, imo. God can't be defined because God is everything at once- past, present and future.

On the point of God within us, here is what CG Jung says:


from Psychology and Alchemy, Bollington Press / Princeton (second edition) ISBN 0-691-09771-2

pg 11

The Church assumes, not altogether without reason, that the fact of semel credidisse (having once believed) leaves certain traces behind it: but of these traces nothing is to be seen in the broad march of events. Christian civilization has proved hollow to a terrifying degree: it is all veneer, but the inner man has remained untouched and therefore unchanged. His soul is out of key with his external beliefs: in his soul the Christian has not kept pace with external developments. Yes, everything is to be found outside- in image and in word, in Church and Bible- but never inside. Inside reign the archaic gods, supreme as of old.


In other words, how can we say God is in everything but humans? God is not seperated from us, to be accessed only through the Church and the Bible. It makes no sense.




Anyway, yes, I agree that our dreams could possibly be a doorway into memories of a life we once lived with God. I know it's a little off-the-wall, but then again, so am I.


Once again, IR, we share something. We are BOTh artists and 'off-the-wall'.






by Shar_Chi


My understanding of the collective subconscious is more about how the human mind has evolved in a way that we all share the same basic architecture of the subconscious. This gives rise to shared symbolic references, naturally compatible body language etc. Kind of like how we all experience sound and colour the same way (mostly) we also experience the subconscious in a similar empathetic way. I don't believe Jung meant this concept to be considered as some kind of interconnected 'akashic record'


Good points for debate, SC.

let's let CG Jung answer;


from Man and his Symbols, pg 41-42

There are many [dream] symbols, however (among them the most important), that are not individual but collective in their nature and origin. These are chiefly religious images. The believer assumes that they are of divine origin- that they have been revealed to man. The skeptic says flatly that they have been invented. Both are wrong. It is true, as the skeptic notes, that religious symbols and concepts have for centuries been the object of careful and quite conscious elaboration. It is equally true, as the believer implies, that their origin is so far buried in the mystery of the past that they seem to have no human source. But they are in fact "collective representations," emanating from primeval dreams and creative fantasies. As such, these images are involuntary spontaneous manifestations and be no means intentional inventions.


So, if the visions we are continually and collectively privy to remain constant throughout the existence of mankind, then the assumption Jung makes is correct- that they are a connection to the very beginning of consciousness.


pg 92

Christians often ask themselves why God does not speak to them, as he is believed to have done in former days. when I hear such questions, it always makes me think of the rabbi who was asked how it could be that God often showed himself to people in olden days while nowadays nobody ever sees him. The rabbi replied: "Nowadays there is no longer anybody who can bow low enough."

This answer hits the nail on the head. We are so captivated by and entangled in our subjective consciousness that we have forgotten the age-old fact that God speaks to us in our dreams and visions. The Buddhist discards the world of unconscious fantasies as useless illusions; the Christian puts his Church and his Bible between himself and his unconscious; and the rational intellect does not yet know that his consciousness is not his total psyche. This ignorance persists today in spite of the fact that for more than 70 years the unconscious has been a scientific concept that is indispensable to any psychological investigation.

We can no longer afford to be so God-Almighty-like as to set ourselves up as judges of the merits and demerits of natural phenomena. We do not base our botany upon the division of useful and useless plants, or our zoology upon the naive distinction between harmless and dangerous animals. But we still complacently assume that consciousness is sense and the unconscious nonsense?

whatever the unconscious may be, it is a natural phenomena producing symbols that prove to be meaningful. we cannot expect someone who has never looked through a microscope to be an authority on microbes; in the same way, no one who has not made a serious study of natural symbols can be a competent judge in this matter. But the general undervaluation of the human soul is so great that neither great religions not the philosophers nor scientific rationalism have been willing to look at it twice.


Do I detect a bit of disgust there.?


Anyhoo... yes, I believe that God is never anywhere else, but present in everyone and everything. There is no hiding from God, even if we purposely ignore It. It would follow, then, that all our thoughts and actions are known to God and that nothing escapes notice.





BB Code edit and a grammar edit


[edit on 28/2/08 by masqua]



[edit on 28/2/08 by masqua]



posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Okay, I'm going to try this quote thingy and see how I do


by masqua
"For me to have had such a dream at age 5 is not normal. There is no way I could have known about the gas chambers, but the actuality of how people reacted in the gas chambers is well documented; small children often survived if they were covered in such a way that the gas could not reach them. I was born in 1946, in Holland.

This dream, to me at least, proves that something passed between that unfortunate young soul who suffered death and myself. Their consciousness was passed on to me."


That must have been a horrible experience for you at such a young age. I too had a bad dream which I experienced several different times, at probably about the same age as your dream, but it did not have the same powerful impact yours had for you. To me, it was just a bad dream, but it probably meant something to me at the time...what, I don't know because I can't remember enough about my life at the time to make the connection. But I think I had just been watching too much television...lol. I'm just a little younger and televisions was a novelty NOT to be ignored when I was that age.

God says he knew us before we were born. Also, Christianity believes that when we die we go "home" to be with God. Going back home would imply that we left home for some reason. Haven't figured out why that is yet, unless maybe we were kicked out...lol...and for that I couldn't quite blame him. We are a funny lot.


CG Jung never denounced the primary belief which all Christians hold, but was no Christian himself even though his father was very involved with the Church (a parson). I am of the same mind, being an agnostic. I believe in God but do not believe in the seperation of God and the human soul. God, whether referred to as a male, a female or an asexual being, is the product of our desire to make deity in our own human form. This is also wrong, imo. God can't be defined because God is everything at once- past, present and future.


Yes, I believe this to be true. God said he created us in his image...and you are correct that many have rather tried to fit themselves into the image of God. However, Jesus did say that "if you have seen me, you have seen the Father". But I think this means we have seen his behavior and this behavior gives us a model to follow. I am a Christian, but I do try not to push my beliefs on anyone that doesn't have an interest. I simply say what I believe and why, when asked. That is one reason I dislike the "athiests against Christian" threads even though I seem to be drawn to them out of interest, and sometimes find I have input. But I digress...I do believe God is more of a spirit form of consciousness. It is possible that our spirits are our consiousness or unconsciousness. I have read where individuals who have NDE's see their lives pass before them very quickly. Could this be a sort of "download" of our mortal life memories into our new spirit being at death?

It is quite possible God's consciousness is shared, or given to an individual. I'll have to think on that one for a while. I think I'm rambling.


The Church assumes, not altogether without reason, that the fact of semel credidisse (having once believed) leaves certain traces behind it: but of these traces nothing is to be seen in the broad march of events. Christian civilization has proved hollow to a terrifying degree: it is all veneer, but the inner man has remained untouched and therefore unchanged. His soul is out of key with his external beliefs: in his soul the Christian has not kept pace with external developments. Yes, everything is to be found outside- in image and in word, in Church and Bible- but never inside. Inside reign the archaic gods, supreme as of old.


These external beliefs would be due to our physical world and our perception with our physical senses. These beliefs must have a purpose or we would not have them. What would the purpose be?


In other words, how can we say God is in everything but humans? God is not seperated from us, to be accessed only through the Church and the Bible. It makes no sense.


I do agree that God is everywhere, in everything and to a certain extent, in everyone. The amount of God a person holds could be related to his/her openness to him. The Bible, therefore, would give us instruction for how to obtain more God. Having more God would make us more God-like.


Once again, IR, we share something. We are BOTh artists and 'off-the-wall'.


Yes, and I see we can agree to disagree about our differing beliefs in our God. I believe that these discussions in a "quiet" way are worthy of pursuit.

I have more to add in the following post. Hope I'm not boring you.



mod edit - fixed quotes

[edit on 29-2-2008 by Duzey]



posted on Feb, 28 2008 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Well, I obviously messed up my quotes, but I think you'll figure it out. You seem like a smart individual.

I wanted to ask you if you ever had dreams that didn't involve yourself in the dream. You answered that question when you spoke of the dream you had when you were 5.

I also have dreams where I feel as if I'm watching a movie. Other people are the subjects of the dream and I am watching everything take place like an observer. I had one such dream last night...and it was so real I had to wonder if I had not entered another dimension. However, I know I didn't because the subjects in the dream were two actors who have appeared in a movie together. And the dream...it was just so real...just like I was with them while everything was happening, but I never saw myself. Usually in my dreams, I am the subject. But more and more lately, I've had these dreams where I am not involved at all.

This is what interested me in your thread to begin with. I am now on a quest to find out what these dreams are and why I am having them. Your input would be greatly appreciated.

I_R





new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join