Answer to Job, by C.G. Jung

That's French for "the ancient system," as in the ancient system of feudal privileges and the exercise of autocratic power over the peasants. The ancien regime never goes away, like vampires and dinosaur bones they are always hidden in the earth, exercising a mysterious influence. It is not paranoia to believe that the elites scheme against the common man. Inform yourself about their schemes here.

Re: Answer to Job, by C.G. Jung

Postby admin » Fri Nov 13, 2015 3:36 am


Let us turn back to the question of coming to terms with the paradoxical idea of God which the Apocalypse reveals to us. Evangelical Christianity, in the strict sense, has no need to bother with it, because it has as an essential doctrine an idea of God that, unlike Yahweh, coincides with the epitome of good. It would have been very different if the John of the Epistles had been obliged to discuss these matters with the John of Revelation. Later generations could afford to ignore the dark side of the Apocalypse, because the specifically Christian achievement was something that was not to be frivolously endangered. But for modern man the case is quite otherwise. We have experienced things so unheard of and so staggering that the question of whether such things are in any way reconcilable with the idea of a good God has become burningly topical. It is no longer a problem for experts in theological seminaries, but a universal religious nightmare, to the solution of which even a layman in theology like myself can, or perhaps must, make a contribution.

I have tried to set forth above the inescapable conclusions which must, I believe, be reached if one looks at tradition with critical common sense. If, in this wise, one is confronted with a paradoxical idea of God, and if, as a religious person, one considers at the same time the full extent of the problem, one finds oneself in the situation of the author of Revelation, who we may suppose was a convinced Christian. His possible identity with the writer of the letters brings out the acuteness of the contradiction: What is the relationship of this man to God? How does he endure the intolerable contradiction in the nature of Deity? Although we know nothing of his conscious decision, we believe we may find some clue in the vision of the sun-woman in travail.

The paradoxical nature of God has a like effect on man: it tears him asunder into opposites and delivers him over to a seemingly insoluble conflict. What happens in such a condition? Here we must let psychology speak, for psychology represents the sum of all the observations and insights it has gained from the empirical study of severe states of conflict. There are, for example, conflicts of duty no one knows how to solve. Consciousness only knows: tertium non datur! The doctor therefore advises his patient to wait and see whether the unconscious will not produce a dream which proposes an irrational and therefore unexpected third thing as a solution. As experience shows, symbols of a reconciling and unitive nature do in fact turn up in dreams, the most frequent being the motif of the child-hero and the squaring of the circle, signifying the union of opposites. Those who have no access to these specifically medical experiences can derive practical instruction from fairy tales, and particularly from alchemy. The real subject of Hermetic philosophy is the coniunctio oppositorum. Alchemy characterizes its "child" on the one hand as the stone (e.g., the carbuncle), and on the other hand as the homunculus, or the filius sapientiae or even the homo altus. This is precisely the figure we meet in the Apocalypse as the son of the sun-woman, whose birth story seems like a paraphrase of the birth of Christ -- a paraphrase which was repeated in various forms by the alchemists. In fact, they posit their stone as a parallel to Christ (this, with one exception, without reference to the Book of Revelation). This motif appears again in corresponding form and in corresponding situations in the dreams of modern man, with no connection with alchemy, and always it has to do with the bringing together of the light and the dark, as though modern man, like the alchemists, had divined what the problem was that the Apocalypse set the future. It was this problem on which the alchemists laboured for nearly seventeen centuries, and it is the same problem that distresses modern man. Though in one respect he knows more, in another respect he knows less than the alchemists. The problem for him is no longer projected upon matter, as it was for them; but on the other hand it has become psychologically acute, so that the psychotherapist has more to say on these matters than the theologian, who has remained caught in his archaic figures of speech. The doctor, often very much against his will, is forced by the problems of psychoneurosis to look more closely at the religious problem. It is not without good reason that I myself have reached the age of seventy-six before venturing to catechize myself as to the nature of those "ruling ideas" which decide our ethical behaviour and have such an important influence on our practical life. They are in the last resort the principles which, spoken or unspoken, determine the moral decisions upon which our existence depends, for weal or woe. All these dominants culminate in the positive or negative concept of God. [168]

Ever since John the apocalyptist experienced for the first time (perhaps unconsciously) the conflict into which Christianity inevitably leads, mankind has groaned under this burden: God wanted to become man, and still wants to. That is probably why John experienced in his vision a second birth of a son from the mother Sophia, a divine birth which was characterized by a coniunctio oppositorum and which anticipated the filius sapi entiae, the essence of the individuation process. This was the effect of Christianity on a Christian of early times, who had lived long and resolutely enough to be able to cast a glance into the distant future. The mediation between the opposites was already indicated in the symbolism of Christ's fate, in the crucifixion scene where the mediator hangs between two thieves, one of whom goes to paradise, the other down to hell. Inevitably, in the Christian view, the opposition had to lie between God and man, and man was always in danger of being identified with the dark side. This, and the predestinarian hints dropped by our Lord, influenced John strongly: only the few preordained from eternity shall be saved, while the great mass of mankind shall perish in the final catastrophe. The opposition between God and man in the Christian view may well be a Yahwistic legacy from olden times, when the metaphysical problem consisted solely in Yahweh's relations with his people. The fear of Yahweh was still too great for anybody to dare -- despite Job's gnosis -- to lodge the antinomy in Deity itself. But if you keep the opposition between God and man, then you finally arrive, whether you like it or not, at the Christian conclusion "omne bonum a Deo, omne malum ab homine," with the absurd result that the creature is placed in opposition to its creator and a positively cosmic or daemonic grandeur in evil is imputed to man. The terrible destructive will that breaks out in John's ecstasies gives some idea of what it means when man is placed in opposition to the God of goodness: it burdens him with the dark side of God, which in Job is still in its right place. But either way man is identified with evil, with the result that he sets his face against goodness or else tries to be as perfect as his father in heaven.

Yahweh's decision to become man is a symbol of the development that had to supervene when man becomes conscious of the sort of God-image he is confronted with. [169] God acts out of the unconscious of man and forces him to harmonize and unite the opposing influences to which his mind is exposed from the unconscious. The unconscious wants both: to divide and to unite. In his. striving for unity, therefore, man may always count on the help of a metaphysical advocate, as Job clearly recognized. The unconscious wants to flow into consciousness in order to reach the light, but at the same time it continually thwarts itself, because it would rather remain unconscious. That is to say, God wants to become man, but not quite. The conflict in his nature is so great that the incarnation can only be bought by an expiatory self-sacrifice offered up to the wrath of God's dark side.

At first, God incarnated his good side in order, as we may suppose, to create the most durable basis for a later assimilation of the other side. From the promise of the Paraclete we may conclude that God wants to become wholly man; in other words, to reproduce himself in his own dark creature (man not redeemed from original sin). The author of Revelation has left us a testimony to the continued operation of the Holy Ghost in the sense of a continuing incarnation. He was a creaturely man who was invaded by the dark God of wrath and vengeance -- a ventus urens, a 'burning wind.' (This John was possibly the favourite disciple, who in old age was vouchsafed a premonition of future developments.) This disturbing invasion engendered in him the image of the divine child, of a future saviour, born of the divine consort whose reflection (the anima) lives in every man -- that child whom Meister Eckhart also saw in a vision. It was he who knew that God alone in his Godhead is not in a state of bliss, but must be born in the human soul ("Gott ist selig in der Seele"). The incarnation in Christ is the prototype which is continually being transferred to the creature by the Holy Ghost.

Since our moral conduct can hardly be compared with that of an early Christian like John, all manner of good as well as evil can still break through in us, particularly in regard to love. A sheer will for destruction, such as was evident in John, is not to be expected in our case. In all my experience I have never observed anything like it, except in cases of severe psychoses and criminal insanity. As a result of the spiritual differentiation fostered by the Reformation, and by the growth of the sciences in particular (which were originally taught by the fallen angels), there is already a considerable admixture of darkness in us, so that, compared with the purity of the early Christian saints (and some of the later ones too), we do not show up in a very favourable light. Our comparative blackness naturally does not help us a bit. Though it mitigates the impact of evil forces, it makes us more vulnerable and less capable of resisting them. We therefore need more light, more goodness and moral strength, and must wash off as much of the obnoxious blackness as possible, otherwise we shall not be able to assimilate the dark God who also wants to become man, and at the same time endure him without perishing. For this all the Christian virtues are needed and something else besides, for the problem is not only moral: we also need the Wisdom that Job was seeking. But at that time she was still hidden in Yahweh, or rather, she was not yet remembered by him. That higher and "complete" (Image) man is begotten by the "unknown" father and born from Wisdom, and it is he who, in the figure of the puer aeternus -- "vultu mutabilis albus et ater" [170] -- represents our totality, which transcends consciousness. It was this boy into whom Faust had to change, abandoning his inflated onesidedness which saw the devil only outside. Christ's "Except ye become as little children" prefigures this change, for in them the opposites lie close together; but what is meant is the boy who is born from the maturity of the adult man, and not the unconscious child we would like to remain. Looking ahead, Christ also hinted, as I mentioned before, at a morality of evil.

Strangely, suddenly, as if it did not belong there, the sun-woman with her child appears in the stream of apocalyptic visions. He belongs to another, future world. Hence, like the Jewish Messiah, the child is "caught up" to God, and his mother must stay for a long time hidden in the wilderness, where she is nourished by God. For the immediate and urgent problem in those days was not the union of opposites, which lay in the future, but the incarnation of the light and the good, the subjugation of concupiscentia, the lust of this world, and the consolidation of the civitas Dei against the advent of the Antichrist, who would come after a thousand years to announce the horrors of the last days, the epiphany of the 'wrathful and avenging God. The Lamb, transformed into a demonic ram, reveals a new gospel, the Evangeliucm Aeternum) which, going right beyond the love of God, has the fear of God as its main ingredient. Therefore the Apocalypse closes, like the classical individuation process, with the symbol of the hieros gamos, the marriage of the son with the mother-bride. But the marriage takes place in heaven, where "nothing unclean" enters, high above the devastated world. Light consorts with light. That is the programme for the Christian aeon which must be fulfilled before God can incarnate in the creaturely man. Only in the last days will the vision of the sun-woman be fulfilled. In recognition of this truth, and evidently inspired by the workings of the Holy Ghost, the Pope has recently announced the dogma of the Assumptio Mariae, very much to the astonishment of all rationalists. Mary as the bride is united with the son in the heavenly bridal-chamber, and, as Sophia, with the Godhead. [171]

This dogma is in every respect timely. In the first place it is a symbolical fulfilment of John's vision. [172] Secondly, it contains an allusion to the marriage of the Lamb at the end of time, and, thirdly, it repeats the Old Testament anamnesis of Sophia. These three references foretell the Incarnation of God. The second and third foretell the Incarnation in Christ, [173] but the first foretells the Incarnation in creaturely man.
Site Admin
Posts: 32381
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Answer to Job, by C.G. Jung

Postby admin » Fri Nov 13, 2015 3:37 am


Everything now depends on man: immense power of destruction is given into his hand, and the question is whether he can resist the will to use it, and can temper his will with the spirit of love and wisdom. He will hardly be capable of doing so on his own unaided resources. He needs the help of an "advocate" in heaven, that is, of the child who was caught up to God and who brings the "healing" and making whole of the hitherto fragmentary man. Whatever man's wholeness, or the self. may mean per se, empirically it is an image of the goal of life spontaneously produced by the unconscious, irrespective of the wishes and fears of the conscious mind. It stands for the goal of the total man, for the realization of his wholeness and individuality with or without the consent of his will. The dynamic of this process is instinct, which ensures that everything which belongs to an individual's life shall enter into it, whether he consents or not, or is conscious of what is happening to him or not. Obviously, it makes a great deal of difference subjectively whether he knows what he is living out, whether he understands what he is doing, and whether he accepts responsibility for what he proposes to do or has done. The difference between conscious realization and the lack of it has been roundly formulated in the saying of Christ already quoted: "Man, if indeed thou knowest what thou doest, thou art blessed: but if thou knowest not, thou art cursed, and a transgressor of the law." [174] Before the bar of nature and fate, unconsciousness is never accepted as an excuse; on the contrary there are very severe penalties for it. Hence all unconscious nature longs for the light of consciousness while frantically struggling against it at the same time.

The conscious realization of what is hidden and kept secret certainly confronts us with an insoluble conflict; at least this is how it appears to the conscious mind. But the symbols that rise up out of the unconscious in dreams show it rather as a confrontation of opposites, and the images of the goal represent their successful reconciliation. Something empirically demonstrable comes to our aid from the depths of our unconscious nature. It is the task of the conscious mind to understand these hints. If this does not happen, the process of individuation will nevertheless continue. The only difference is that we become its victims and are dragged along by fate towards that inescapable goal which we might have reached walking upright, if only we had taken the trouble and been patient enough to understand in time the meaning of the numina that cross our path. The only thing that really matters now is whether man can climb up to a higher moral level, to a higher plane of consciousness, in order to be equal to the superhuman powers which the fallen angels have played into his hands. But he can make no progress with himself unless he becomes very much better acquainted with his own nature. Unfortunately, a terrifying ignorance prevails in this respect, and an equally great aversion to increasing the knowledge of his intrinsic character. However, in the most unexpected quarters nowadays we find people who can no longer blink the fact that something ought to be done with man in regard to his psychology. Unfortunately, the little word "ought" tells us that they do not know what to do, and do not know the way that leads to the goal. We can, of course, hope for the undeserved grace of God, who hears our prayers. But God, who also does not hear our prayers, wants to become man, and for that purpose he has chosen, through the Holy Ghost, the creaturely man filled with darkness -- the natural man who is tainted with original sin and who learnt the divine arts and sciences from the fallen angels. The guilty man is eminently suitable and is therefore chosen to become the vessel for the continuing incarnation, not the guiltless one who holds aloof from the world and refuses to pay his tribute to life, for in him the dark God would find no room.

Since the Apocalypse we now know again that God is not only to be loved, but also to be feared. He fills us with evil as well as with good, otherwise he would not need to be feared; and because he wants to become man, the uniting of his antinomy must take place in man. This involves man in a new responsibility. He can no longer wriggle out of it on the plea of his littleness and nothingness, for the dark God has slipped the atom bomb and chemical weapons into his hands and given him the power to empty out the apocalyptic vials of wrath on his fellow creatures. Since he has been granted an almost godlike power, he can no longer remain blind and unconscious. He must know something of God's nature and of metaphysical processes if he is to understand himself and thereby achieve gnosis of the Divine.
Site Admin
Posts: 32381
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Answer to Job, by C.G. Jung

Postby admin » Fri Nov 13, 2015 3:38 am


The promulgation of the new dogma of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary could, in itself, have been sufficient reason for examining the psychological background. It was interesting to note that, among the many articles published in the Catholic and Protestant press on the declaration of the dogma, there was not one, so far as I could see, which laid anything like the proper emphasis on what was undoubtedly the most powerful motive: namely, the popular movement and the psychological need behind it. Essentially, the writers of the articles were satisfied with learned considerations, dogmatic and historical, which have no bearing on the living religious process. But anyone who has followed with attention the visions of Mary which have been increasing- in number over the last few decades, and has taken their psychological significance into account, might have known what was brewing. The fact, especially, that it was largely children who had the visions might have given pause for thought, for in such cases the collective unconscious is always at work. Incidentally, the Pope himself is rumoured to have had several visions of the Mother of God on the occasion of the declaration. One could have known for a long time that there was a deep longing in the masses for an intercessor and mediatrix who would at last take her place alongside the Holy Trinity and be received as the "Queen of Heaven and Bride at the heavenly court." For more than a thousand years it had been taken for granted that the Mother of God dwelt there, and we know from the Old Testament that Sophia was with God before the creation. From the ancient Egyptian theology of the divine Pharaohs we know that God wants to become man by means of a human mother, and it was recognized even in prehistoric times that the primordial divine being is both male and female. But such a truth eventuates in time only when it is solemnly proclaimed or rediscovered. It is psychologically significant for our day that in the year 1950 the heavenly bride was united with the bridegroom. In order to interpret this event, one has to consider not only the arguments adduced by the Papal Bull, but the prefigurations in the apocalyptic marriage of the Lamb and in the Old Testament anamnesis of Sophia. The nuptial union in the thalamus (bridal-chamber) signifies the hieros gamos, and this in turn is the first step towards incarnation, towards the birth of the saviour who, since antiquity, was thought of as the filius solis et lunae, the filius sapientiae, and the equivalent of Christ. When, therefore, a longing for the exaltation of the Mother of God passes through the people, this tendency, if thought to its logical conclusion, means the desire for the birth of a saviour, a peacemaker, a "mediator pacem faciens inter inimicos." [175] Although he is already born in the pleroma, his birth in time can only be accomplished when it is perceived, recognized, and declared by man.

The motive and content of the popular movement which contributed to the Pope's decision solemnly to declare the new dogma consist not in the birth of a new god, but in the continuing incarnation of God which began with Christ. Arguments based on historical criticism will never do justice to the new dogma; on the contrary, they are as lamentably wide of the mark as are the unqualified fears to which the English archbishops have given expression. In the first place, the declaration of the dogma has changed nothing in principle in the Catholic ideology as it has existed for more than a thousand years; and in the second place, the failure to understand that God has eternally wanted to become man, and for that purpose continually incarnates through the Holy Ghost in the temporal sphere, is an alarming symptom and can only mean that the Protestant standpoint has lost ground by not understanding the signs of the times and by ignoring the continued operation of the Holy Ghost. It is obviously out of touch with the tremendous archetypal happenings in the psyche of the individual and the masses, and with the symbols which are intended to compensate the truly apocalyptic world situation today. [176] It seems to have succumbed to a species of rationalistic historicism and to have lost any understanding of the Holy Ghost who works in the hidden places of the soul. It can therefore neither understand nor admit a further revelation of the divine drama.

This circumstance has given me, a layman in things theological, cause to put forward my views on these dark matters. My attempt is based on the psychological experience I have harvested during the course of a long life. I do not underestimate the psyche in any respect whatsoever, nor do I imagine for a moment that psychic happenings vanish into thin air by being explained. Psychologism represents a still primitive mode of magical thinking, with the help of which one hopes to conjure the reality of the soul out of existence, after the manner of the "Proktophantasmist" in Faust:

Are you still here? Nay, it's a thing unheard.
Vanish at once! We've said the enlightening word.

One would be very ill advised to identify me with such a childish standpoint. However, I have been asked so often whether I believe in the existence of God or not that I am somewhat concerned lest I be taken for an adherent of "psychologism" far more commonly than I suspect. What most people overlook or seem unable to understand is the fact that I regard the psyche as real. They believe only in physical facts, and must consequently come to the conclusion that either the uranium itself or the laboratory equipment created the atom bomb. That is no less absurd than the assumption that a non-real psyche is responsible for it. God is an obvious psychic and non-physical fact, i.e., a fact that can be established psychically but not physically. Equally, these people have still not got it into their heads that the psychology of religion falls into two categories, which must be sharply distinguished from one another: firstly, the psychology of the religious person, and secondly, the psychology of religion proper, i.e., of religious contents.

It is chiefly my experiences in the latter field which have given me the courage to enter into the discussion of the religious question and especially into the pros and cons of the dogma of the Assumption -- which, by the way, I consider to be the most important religious event since the Reformation. It is a petra scandali for the un psychological mind: how can such an unfounded assertion as the bodily reception of the Virgin into heaven be put forward as worthy of belief? But the method which the Pope uses in order to demonstrate the truth of the dogma makes sense to the psychological mind, because it bases itself firstly on the necessary prefigurations, and secondly on a tradition of religious assertions reaching back for more than a thousand years. Clearly, the material evidence for the existence of this psychic phenomenon is more than sufficient. It does not matter at all that a physically impossible fact is asserted, because all religious assertions are physical impossibilities. If they were not so, they would, as I said earlier, necessarily be treated in the text-books of natural science. But religious statements without exception have to do with the reality of the psyche and not with the reality of physis. What outrages the Protestant standpoint in particular is the boundless approximation of the Deipara to the Godhead and, in consequence, the endangered supremacy of Christ, from which Protestantism will not budge. In sticking to this point it has obviously failed to consider that its hymnology is full of references to the "heavenly bridegroom," who is now suddenly supposed not to have a bride with equal rights. Or has, perchance, the "bridegroom," in true psychologistic manner, been understood as a mere metaphor?

The logical consistency of the papal declaration cannot be surpassed, and it leaves Protestantism with the odium of being nothing but a man's religion which allows no metaphysical representation of woman. In this respect it is similar to Mithraism, and Mithraism found this prejudice very much to its detriment. Protestantism has obviously not given sufficient attention to the signs of the times which point to the equality of women. But this equality requires to be metaphysically anchored in the figure of a "divine" woman, the bride of Christ. Just as the person of Christ cannot be replaced by an organization, so the bride cannot be replaced by the Church. The feminine, like the masculine, demands an equally personal representation.

The dogmatizing of the Assumption does not, however, according to the dogmatic view, mean that Mary has attained the status of a goddess, although, as mistress of heaven (as opposed to the prince of the sublunary aerial realm, Satan) and mediatrix, she is functionally on a par with Christ, the king and mediator. At any rate her position satisfies the need of the archetype. The new dogma expresses a renewed hope for the fulfilment of that yearning for peace which stirs deep down in the soul, and for a resolution of the threatening tension between the opposites. Everyone shares this tension and everyone experiences it in his individual form of unrest, the more so the less he sees any possibility of getting rid of it by rational means. It is no wonder, therefore, that the hope, indeed the expectation of divine intervention arises in the collective unconscious and at the same time in the masses. The papal declaration has given comforting expression to this yearning. How could Protestantism so completely miss the point? This lack of understanding can only be explained by the fact that the dogmatic symbols and hermeneutic allegories have lost their meaning for Protestant rationalism. This is also true, in some measure, of the opposition to the new dogma within the Catholic Church itself, or rather to the dogmatization of the old doctrine. Naturally, a certain degree of rationalism is better suited to Protestantism than it is to the Catholic outlook. The latter gives the archetypal symbolisms the necessary freedom and space in which to develop over the centuries while at the same time insisting on their original form, unperturbed by intellectual difficulties and the objections of rationalists. In this way the Catholic Church demonstrates her maternal character, because she allows the tree growing out of her matrix to develop according to its own laws. Protestantism, in contrast, is committed to the paternal spirit. Not only did it develop, at the outset, from an encounter with the worldly spirit of the times, but it continues this dialectic with the spiritual currents of every age; for the pneuma, in keeping with its original wind nature, is flexible, ever in living motion, comparable now to water, now to fire. It can desert its original haunts, can even go astray and get lost, if it succumbs too much to the spirit of the age. In order to fulfil its task, the Protestant spirit must be full of unrest and occasionally troublesome; it must even be revolutionary, so as to make sure that tradition has an influence on the change of contemporary values. The shocks it sustains during this encounter modify and at the same time enliven the tradition, which in its slow progress through the centuries would, without these disturbances, finally arrive at complete petrifaction and thus lose its effect. By merely criticizing and opposing certain developments within the Catholic Church, Protestantism would gain only a miserable bit of vitality, unless, mindful of the fact that Christianity consists of two separate camps, or rather, is a disunited brother-sister pair, it remembers that besides defending its own existence it must acknowledge Catholicism's right to exist too. A brother who for theological reasons wanted to cut the thread of his elder sister's life would rightly be called inhuman -- to say nothing of Christian charity -- and the converse is also true. Nothing is achieved by merely negative criticism. It is justified only to the degree that it is creative. Therefore it would seem profitable to me if, for example, Protestantism admitted that it is shocked by the new dogma not only because it throws a distressing light on the gulf between brother and sister, but because, for fundamental reasons, a situation has developed within Christianity which removes it further than ever from the sphere of worldly understanding. Protestantism knows, or could know, how much it owes its very existence to the Catholic Church. How much or how little does the Protestant still possess if he can no longer criticize or protest? In view of the intellectual skandalon which the new dogma represents, he should remind himself of his Christian responsibility -- "Am I my brother's (or in this case, my sister's) keeper?" -- and examine in all seriousness the reasons, explicit or otherwise, that decided the declaration of the new dogma. In so doing, he should guard against casting cheap aspersions and would do well to assume that there is more in it than papal arbitrariness. It would be desirable for the Protestant to understand that the new dogma has placed upon him a new responsibility toward the worldly spirit of our age, for he cannot simply deny his problematical sister before the eyes of the world. He must, even if he finds her antipathetic, be fair to her if he does not want to lose his self-respect. For instance, this is a favourable opportunity for him to ask himself, for a change, what is the meaning not only of the new dogma but of all more or less dogmatic assertions over and above their literal concretism. Considering the arbitrary and protean state of his own dogmas, and the precarious, schism-riven condition of his Church, he cannot afford to remain rigid and impervious to the spirit of the age. And since, in accordance with his obligations to the Zeitgeist, he is more concerned to come to terms with the world and its ideas than with God, it would seem clearly indicated that, on the occasion of the entry of the Mother of God into the heavenly bridal-chamber, he should bend to the great task of reinterpreting all the Christian traditions. If it is a question of truths which are anchored deep in the soul -- and no one with the slightest insight can doubt this fact -- then the solution of this task must be possible. For this we need the freedom of the spirit, which, as we know, is assured only in Protestantism. The dogma of the Assumption is a slap in the face for the historical and rationalistic view of the world, and would remain so for all time if one were to insist obstinately on the arguments of reason and history. This is a case, if ever there was one, where psychological understanding is needed, because the mythologem coming to light is so obvious that we must be deliberately blinding ourselves if we cannot see its symbolic nature and interpret it in symbolic terms.

The dogmatization of the Assumptio Mariae points to the hieros gamos in the pleroma, and this in turn implies, as we have said, the future birth of the divine child, who, in accordance with the divine trend towards incarnation, will choose as his birthplace the empirical man. The metaphysical process is known to the psychology of the unconscious as the individuation process. In so far as this process, as a rule, runs its course unconsciously as it has from time immemorial, it means no more than that the acorn becomes an oak, the calf a cow, and the child an adult. But if the individuation process is made conscious, consciousness must confront the unconscious and a balance between the opposites must be found. As this is not possible through logic, one is dependent on symbols which make the irrational union of opposites possible. They are produced spontaneously by the unconscious and are amplified by the conscious mind. The central symbols of this process describe the self, which is man's totality, consisting on the one hand of that which is conscious to him, and on the other hand of the contents of the unconscious. The self is the Image, the whole man, whose symbols are the divine child and its synonyms. This is only a very summary sketch of the process, but it can be observed at any time in modern man, or one can read about it in the documents of Hermetic philosophy from the Middle Ages. The parallelism between the symbols is astonishing to anyone who knows both the psychology of the unconscious and alchemy.

The difference between the "natural" individuation process, which runs its course unconsciously, and the one which is consciously realized, is tremendous. In the first case consciousness nowhere intervenes; the end remains as dark as the beginning. In the second case so much darkness comes to light that the personality is permeated with light, and consciousness necessarily gains in scope and insight. The encounter between conscious and unconscious has to ensure that the light which shines in the darkness is not only comprehended by the darkness, but comprehends it. The filius solis et lunae is the symbol of the union of opposites as well as the catalyst of their union. It is the alpha and omega of the process, the mediator and intermedius. "It has a thousand names," say the alchemists, meaning that the source from which the individuation process rises and the goal towards which it aims is nameless, ineffable.

It is only through the psyche that we can establish that God acts upon us, but we are unable to distinguish whether these actions emanate from God or from the unconscious. We cannot tell whether God and the unconscious are two different entities. Both are border-line concepts for transcendental contents. But empirically it can be established, with a sufficient degree of probability, that there is in the unconscious an archetype of wholeness which manifests itself spontaneously in dreams, etc., and a tendency, independent of the conscious will, to relate other archetypes to this centre. Consequently, it does not seem improbable that the archetype of wholeness occupies as such a central position which approximates it to the God-image. The similarity is further borne out by the peculiar fact that the archetype produces a symbolism which has always characterized and expressed the Deity. These facts make possible a certain qualification of our above thesis concerning the indistinguishableness of God and the unconscious. Strictly speaking, the God-image does not coincide with the unconscious as such, but with a special content of it, namely the archetype of the self. It is this archetype from which we can no longer distinguish the God-image empirically. We can arbitrarily postulate a difference between these two entities, but that does not help us at all. On the contrary, it only helps us to separate man from God, and prevents God from becoming man. Faith is certainly right when it impresses on man's mind and heart how infinitely far away and inaccessible God is; but it also teaches his nearness, his immediate presence, and it is just this nearness which has to be empirically real if it is not to lose all significance. Only that which acts upon me do I recognize as real and actual. But that which has no effect upon me might as well not exist. The religious need longs for wholeness, and therefore lays hold of the images of wholeness offered by the unconscious, which, independently of the conscious mind, rise up from the depths of our psychic nature.
Site Admin
Posts: 32381
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Answer to Job, by C.G. Jung

Postby admin » Fri Nov 13, 2015 3:38 am


It will probably have become clear to the reader that the account I have given of the development of symbolic entities corresponds to a process of differentiation of human consciousness. But since, as I showed in the introduction, the archetypes in question are not mere objects of the mind, but are also autonomous factors, i.e., living subjects, the differentiation of consciousness can be understood as the effect of the intervention of transcendentally conditioned dynamisms. In this case it would be the archetypes that accomplish the primary transformation. But since, in our experience, there are no psychic conditions which could be observed through introspection outside the human being, the behaviour of the archetypes cannot be investigated at all without the interaction of the observing consciousness. Therefore the question as to whether the process is initiated by consciousness or by the archetype can never be answered; unless, in contradiction to experience, one either robbed the archetype of its autonomy or degraded consciousness to a mere machine. We find ourselves in best agreement with psychological experience if we concede to the archetype a definite measure of independence, and to consciousness a degree of creative freedom proportionate to its scope. There then arises that reciprocal action between two relatively autonomous factors which compels us, when describing and explaining the processes, to present sometimes the one and sometimes the other factor as the acting subject, even when God becomes man. The Christian solution has hitherto avoided this difficulty by recognizing Christ as the one and only God-man. But the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, the third Divine Person, in man, brings about a Christification of many, and the question then arises whether these many are all complete God-men. Such a transformation would lead to insufferable collisions between them, to say nothing of the unavoidable inflation to which the ordinary mortal, who is not freed from original sin, would instantly succumb. In these circumstances it is well to remind ourselves of St. Paul and his split consciousness: on one side he felt he was the apostle directly called and enlightened by God, and, on the other side, a sinful man who could not pluck out the "thorn in the flesh" and rid himself of the Satanic angel who plagued him. That is to say, even the enlightened person remains what he is, and is never more than his own limited ego before the One who dwells within him, whose form has no knowable boundaries, who encompasses him on all sides, fathomless as the abysms of the earth and vast as the sky.
Site Admin
Posts: 32381
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Answer to Job, by C.G. Jung

Postby admin » Fri Nov 13, 2015 3:40 am



1. Job 40: 4-5. [Quotations throughout are from the Revised Standard Version (RSV). except where the Authorized Version (AV) is closer to the text of the Zurcher Bibel (ZB) used by the author in conjunction with the original Hebrew and Greek sources. Where neither RSV nor AV fits, I have translated direct from ZB. The poetic line-arrangement of RSV is followed in so far as possible. -- Trans.]

2. Job 9: 2.

3. 9:16.

4. 9:19.

5. 9:17.

6. 9:22.

7. 9:23 (AV).

8. 9:28, 29.

9. 9:30-31 (AV).

10. 9:32 (AV).

11. 10:7.

12. 13:3.

13. 13:15.

14. 13:18.

15. 13:25 (AV).

16. 19:6-7.

17. 27:2.

18. 27:5-6.

19. 34:12.

20. 34:18 (AV).

21. 34:19 (ZB).

22. 16:19-21.

23. 19: 25. ('Vindicator' is RSV alternative reading for 'Redeemer,' and comes very close to the ZB Anwalt, 'advocate.' -- Trans.]

24. Verses 28, 34, 35.

25. Psalm 89: 46, 47, 49 (AV; last line from RSV).

26. Or to be "blessed:' which is even more captious of him.

27. Zechariah 4: 10 (AV). Cf. also the Wisdom of Solomon 1: 10 (AV): "For the ear of jealousy heareth all things: and the noise of murmurings is not hid."

28. The 89th Psalm is attributed to David and is supposed to have been a community song written in exile.

29. Satan is presumably one of God's eyes which "go to and fro in the earth and walk up and down in it" (Job 1:7). In Persian tradition, Ahriman proceeded from one of Ormuzd's doubting thoughts.

30. Job 38:2 (ZB).

31. Job 38: 3 and 40: 7.

32. 40: 8-9.

33. 40: 12-14 ("in the hidden place" is RSV alternative reading for "in the world below").

34. This is an allusion to an idea found in the later cabalistic philosophy. [These "shards," also called "shells" (Heb. kelipot), form ten counterpoles to the ten sefiroth, which are the ten stages in the revelation of God's creative power. The shards, representing the forces of evil and darkness, were originally mixed with the light of the sefiroth. The Zohar describes evil as the by-product of the life process of the sefiroth. Therefore the sefiroth had to be cleansed of the evil admixture of the shards. This elimination of the shards took place in what is de- scribed in the cabalistic writings -- particularly of Luria and his school -- as the "breaking of the vessels," Through this the powers of evil assumed a separate and real existence. Cf. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, p. 267. -- EDITORS.]

35. 42: 2.

36. 42: 3-6 (modified).

37. Job 41: 25 (ZB); cf. 41: 34 (AV and RSV).

38. Ezekiel 1: 26.

39. The naive assumption that the creator of the world is a conscious being must be regarded as a disastrous prejudice which later gave rise to the most incredible dislocations of logic. For example, the nonsensical doctrine of the privatio boni would never have been necessary had one not had to assume in advance that it is impossible for the consciousness of a good God to produce evil deeds. Divine unconsciousness and lack of reflection. on the other hand. enable us to form a conception of God which puts his actions beyond moral judgment and allows no conflict to arise between goodness and beastliness.

40. Job 42:7.

41. Cf. Gnostic interpretation of Yahweh as Saturn-Ialdabaoth in "Transformation Symbolism in the Mass," par. 350; Aion, par. 128. -- EDITORS.]

42. Proverbs 8: 22-24 (AV). 27. 29-31 (AV mod.).

43. Ecclesiasticus 24:3-18 (AV mod.).

44. II Samuels: 5:23f.

45. Song of Solomon 4: 8 (AV).

46. 4:13-15.

47. Song of Solomon 5:5.

48. Wisdom of Solomon 1:6. (Image.)

49. 7:23.

50. 7:22. (Image).

51. 7:25 (AV mod.). (Image.)

52. 7:26.

53. 7:23, 24.

54. 8:3. (Image.)

55. 8:6.

56. 9:10, 17.

57. 6:18 and 8:13.

58. 1:15-16 (mod.).

59. 2:10-19.

60. Job 2: 3; Ecclesiastes 9: 16.

61. [As to that portion of humanity not divinely stamped, and presumably descended from the pre-Adamic anthropoids, see par. 576, above. -- EDITORS.)

62. Image. -- A view that is found in Philo Judaeus.

63. [Cf. Jung's commentary on the Tibetan Book of the Dead, pars. 831 ff. -- EDITORS.]

64. Cf. Image in the parable of the unjust steward (Luke 16: 8).

65. Job 28: 12: "But where shall wisdom be found?" Whether this is a later interpolation or not makes no difference.

66. John 1: 3: "All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made."

67. Proverbs 8: 29-30.

68. Job 40: 15, 19 (last line, ZB).

69. In Christian tradition, too, there is a belief that God's intention to become man was known to the Devil many centuries before, and that this was why he instilled the Dionysus myth into the Greeks, so that they could say. when the joyful tidings reached them in reality: "So what? We knew all that long ago." When the conquistadores later discovered the crosses of the Mayas in Yucatan, the Spanish bishops used the same argument.

70. John 14:6.

71. Mark 3:21.

72. Luke 10: 18.

73. Revelation 7: 4.

74. Revelation 19: 20.

75. John 14: 12.

76. 10:34.

77. Romans 8:17.

78. John 14: 16f.

79. 14:26 and 16:13.

80. Acts 14: 11.

81. "Mancipem quendam divinitatis qui ex hominibus deos fecerit." Apologeticus, XI, in Migne, P.L., vol. 1, col. 586.

82. John 4: 1 (mod.).

83. I Corinthians 2: 10.

84. Matthew 26: 39.

85. Abraham and Isaac.

86. The vision in which he received his call occurred in 592 B.C.

87. It is altogether wrong to assume that visions as such are pathological. They occur with normal people also -- not very frequently, it is true, but they are by no means rare.

88. Ezekiel 1:16.

89. Daniel 7: 13.

90. Genesis 6: 3f.

91. Enoch 7: 2.

92. Enoch 7: 3-6. [The translations of the Book of Enoch are from Charles, ed., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, II, sometimes slightly modified. -- TRANS.]

93. Enoch 9: 5-11.

94. 22: 2.

95. Enoch 40: 7.

96. Cf. also ch. 87f. Of the four "beings who were like white men," three take Enoch by the hand, while the other seizes a star and hurls it into the abyss.

97. Three had animal faces, one a human face.

98. Enoch 46: 1-3.

99. 47:4.

100. 48:1.

101. 48: 4, 6-7.

102. Enoch 49: 1-3.

103. Synonym for Sheol.

104. 51: 1,3.

105. 54:6. Here at last we hear that the exodus of the two hundred angels was a prank of Satan's.

106. 58:6 (mod.).

107. 60:10.

108. 71: 5-6.

109. 71:14.

110. 71: 17.

111. The author of the Book of Enoch chose. as the hero of his tale, Enoch the son of Jared. the seventh after Adam, who "walked with God," and. instead of dying. simply disappeared, Le., was carried away by God ("... and he was not, for God took him." -- Genesis 5: 14).

112. Job 19: 25.d

113. As a consequence of her immaculate conception Mary is already different from other mortals, and this fact is confirmed by her assumption.

114. Presumably the "morning star" (cf. Revelation 2: 28 and 22: 16). This is the planet Venus in her psychological implications and not, as one might think, either of the two malefici, Saturn and Mars.

115. John 14: 16.

116. John 14:12.

117. 10:35.

118. An apocryphal insertion at Luke 6: 4. ["Man, if indeed thou knowest what thou doest, thou art blessed; but if thou knowest not. thou art cursed, and a transgressor of the law" (trans. in James, The Apocryphal New Testament, p. 33). -- TRANS.]

119. I John 1:5.

120. 2: 1-2.

121. 3: 9.

122. 2: 18f., 4: 3.

123. Cf. Rev. 1: 16-17.

124. Rev. 2: 5.

125. 2: 20f.

126. 3: 3.

127. 3: 19.

128. 4 : 3.

129. 4: 6f.

130. This refers to the "luminosity" of the archetypes. [Cf. Jung, "On the Nature of the Psyche," pars. 388ff. -- EDITORS.]

131. Rev. 5: 6.

132. 6: 10.

133. 6:17 (AV).

134. Rev. 12: 1.

135. Rev. 11: 19. The arca foederis is an allegoria Mariae.

136. "Heaven above, heaven below."

137. Rev. 12: 5; cf. 2: 27.

138. Rev. 12: 9.

139. It is very probable that John knew the Leto myth and used it consciously. What was unconscious and most unexpected, however, was the fact that his unconscious used this pagan myth to describe the birth of the second Messiah.

140. Rev. 12: 16 (AV).

141. [Cf. Marie·Louise von Franz, "Die Passio Perpetuae." -- EDITORS.]

142. The son would then correspond to the filius sapientiae of medieval alchemy.

143. Rev. 14: 1. It may be significant that there is no longer any talk of the "great multitude which no man could number, from every nation. from all tribes and peoples and tongues. standing before the throne and before the Lamb," who were mentioned in 7:9.

144. 14:4 (AV).

145. They really belong to the cult of the Great Mother, since they correspond to the emasculated Galli. Cf. the strange passage in Matthew 19: 12, about the eunuchs "who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven," like the priests of Cybele who used to castrate themselves in honour of her son Attis.

146. Cf. also Rev. 19:5.

147. 14: 14 and 17. The auxiliary angel might well be John himself.

148. 14: 19-20.

149. 15:6-7 and 16: 1ff.

150. Rev. 18: 10 (AV).

151. 19:15 (AV).

152. 19:13.

153. 19: 11. Here again astrological speculations concerning the second half of the Christian aeon may be implied, with Pegasus as paranatellon of Aquarius.

154. Rev. 20:3 (AV).

155. 20:10 and 21:1.

156. 19:7.

157. 21:2.

158. 21:11.

159. 21:16-27.

160. 22:1-2.

161. In China, heaven is round and the earth square.

162. Ecclesiasticus 24: 11 and 18 (AV).

163. Terlullian, Adversus Judaeos, XIII (Migne. P.L., vol. II. col. 635): "... illa terra virgo nondum pluviis rigata nec imbribus foecundata. ex qua homo tunc primum plasmalus est. ex qua nunc Christus secundum camem ex virgine natus est" (... that virgin soil. not yet watered by the rains nor fertilized by the showers, from which man was originally formed [and] from which Christ is now born of a Virgin through the flesh).

164. Ezekiel 1: 18.

165. Not for nothing was the apostle John nicknamed "son of thunder" by Christ.

166. John 4:7-21.

167. [Herostratus, in order to make his name immortal, burned down the temple of Artemis in Ephesus. in 535 B.C. -- EDITORS.]

168. Psychologically the God-concept includes every idea of the ultimate, of the first or last, of the highest or lowest. The name makes no difference.

169. The God-concept. as the idea of an all-embracing totality, also includes the unconscious. and hence. in contrast to consciousness. it includes the objective psyche. which so often frustrates the will and intentions of the conscious mind. Prayer. for instance. reinforces the potential of the unconscious. thus accounting for the sometimes unexpected effects of prayer.

170. "Of changeful countenance. both white and black." Horace, Epistulae, II, 2.

171. Apostolic Constitution ("Munificentissimus Deus") of ... Pius XII, §22: "Oportebat sponsam, quam Pater desponsaverat, in thalamis caeleslibus habitare" (The place of the bride whom the Father had espoused was in the heavenly courts). -- St. John Damascene, Encomium in Dormitionem, etc., Homily II, 14 (cf. Migne, P.G., vol. 96, col. 742). §30: Comparison with the Bride in the Song of Solomon. §33: "... ita pariter surrexit et Area sanctificationis suae, cum in hac die Virgo Mater ad aethereum thalamum est assumpta" (... so in like manner arose the Ark which he had sanctified, when on this day the Virgin Mother was taken up to her heavenly bridal-chamber). -- St. Anthony of Padua, Sermones Dominicales, etc. (ed. Locatelli, III, p. 730).

172. Apostolic Constitution, §31: "Ac praeterea scholastici doctores non modo in variis Veteris Testamenti figuris, sed in illa etiam Muliere amicta sole, quam Joannes Apostolus in insula Patmo [Rev. 12: 1ff.] contemplatus est, Assumptionem Deiparae Virginis significatam viderunt" (Moreover, the Scholastic doctors saw the Assumption of the Virgin Mother of God signified not only in the various figures of the Old Testament, but also in the Woman clothed with the sun, whom the Apostle John contemplated on the island of Patmos).

173. The marriage of the Lamb repeats the Annunciation and the Overshadowing of Mary.

174. Codex Bezae, apocryphal insertion at Luke 6: 4. [Trans. by James: see above, par. 696. n. 6. -- TRANS.]

175. "A mediator making peace between enemies."

176. The papal rejection of psychological symbolism may be explained by the far; that the Pope is primarily concerned with the reality of metaphysical happenings. Owing to the undervaluation of the psyche that everywhere prevails, every attempt at adequate psychological understanding is immediately suspected of psychologism. It is understandable that dogma must be protected from this danger. If, in physics, one seeks to explain the nature of light, nobody expects that as a result there will be no light. But in the case of psychology everybody' believes that what it explains is explained away. However, I cannot expect that my particular deviationist point of view could be known in any competent quarter.
Site Admin
Posts: 32381
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Answer to Job, by C.G. Jung

Postby admin » Fri Nov 13, 2015 3:40 am


ANTHONY OF PADUA, SAINT. S. Antonii Patavini Sermones dominicales et in solemnitatibus. Edited by Antonio Maria Locatelli. Padua, 1895. 3 vols.

CHARLES, ROBERT HENRY (ed.). The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English. Oxford, 1913. 2 vols.

FRANZ, MARIE-LOUISE VON. Die Passio Perpetuae. In: C. G. JUNG. Aion: Untersuchungen zur Symbolgeschichte. Zurich, 1951.

JAMES, MONTAGUE RHODES (trans.). The Apocryphal New Testament. Oxford, 1924.

JUNG, CARL GUSTAV. Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self. Collected Works, [1] Vol. 9, part ii.

---. "On the Nature of the Psyche." In: Collected Works, Vol. 8.

---. "Psychological Commentary on 'The Tibetan Book of the Dead'." In: Collected Works, Vol. 11.

---. "Transformation Symbolism in the Mass." In: Collected Works, Vol. 11.

MIGNE, JACQUES PAUL (ed.). Patrologiae cursus completus.

[P.L.] Latin Series. Paris, 1844-64. 221 vols.

[P.G.] Greek Series. Paris, 1857-66. 166 vols.

(These works are referred to in the text and in this bibliography as "Migne, P.L." and "Migne, P.G." respectively. References are to columns, not to pages.)

SCHOLEM, GERSHOM G. Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism. New York, 1941; 3rd edn., 1954·

TERTULLIAN. Adversus Judaeos. In Migne, P.L., vol. 2, cols. 595-642. For translation, see: The Writings of Tertullianus. Translated by S. Thelwall, P. Holmes, and others. Vol. III. (Ante-Nicene Christian Library, 18.) Edinburgh, 1870.



1. For details of the Collected Works of C. G. lung, see the list at the end of this volume.
Site Admin
Posts: 32381
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Answer to Job, by C.G. Jung

Postby admin » Fri Nov 13, 2015 3:42 am


In entries relating to the books of the Bible, the numbers in parentheses indicate the chapter and verse(s) referred to


Abel, 29-32, 37-38, 43-44, 48, 50,
60; see also Cain
Abraham, 56
Acts of the Apostles, (14: 11), 52
Adam, 29U, 35, 40; Anthropos/original
man, 11; copy/ chthonic
equivalent of God, 30, 37, 38;
hermaphroditic, 29, 36; limitation
of, 43; the second, 35, 79; see also
First Parents
Adonis, 26, 81; birth of, 27
advocate, see Paraclete
aeon, Christian, 84-85; 89, 96
affect(s), 44; author's, 4; symptom of
virtuousness, 87; of Yahweh, 54
agnosticism, 90
Ahriman, 13n
alchemy, 75, 88; quaternity in, 61;
symbols of, 106; and union of opposites,
"Ancient of Days, " 59, 73, 75
angel(s), 84; auxiliary, 83; fallen,
30, 32, 59U, 95, 98; of God's face,
62, 64
Angelus Silesius Uohannes Schef
fler), 88
anima, 94
animal(s), creation of, 40, 41; four,
of Yahweh, 21; see also behemoth;
crocodile; dove; dragon; fish,
horse; leviathan; ram; sea monsters;
serpent; snake
anima mundi, sun-woman as, 77
Anthony of Padua, St., 96n
anthropoids: pre-Adamic, 12, 29n
anthropomorphic: images of God,
Anthropos (Image), 77; Adam as,
II, 43; sun-woman as feminine, 77
Antichrist, ix, 50, 70-73, 96; expectation
of, 73-75; reign of, 85, 88
antimimon pneuma (Image
Image), 50
antinomy, see opposites
Apocalypse, see Revelation
Apollo, 76, 78
Aquarius, 84n, 89
archaic patterns, see archetypes; motifs,
archetype(s), xiii, xiv, 47, 107-08, et
passim; Christ as, 47; and consciousness,
107-08; of God, xiv;
luminosity of, 75n; Trinity as, see
Trinity; of wholeness, 107; see
also divine child; duality; God-image;
hero; mandala; self
Ark of the Covenant, 76
art, modern, 84
arts and sciences, taught by fallen
angels, 59, 95, 98
Assumption, of Virgin Mary, x, 36,
68n; proclamation of dogmas, 961,
astrology, 50, 80
atom bomb, 89, 99, 102
atonement, 56
Attis, 16, 8sn
autonomy: of archetypes, xiv
Azazel, 59, 50, 64


Babylon, 26, 84
Balder, 81
baptism, 54
Barbelo, 61
Bardo state, 32, 48; see also pleroma
Barnabas, 52
behemoth, 41, 64
benedictio fontis, 63
Bethlehem, 74
Bible, xiv, xv, S, 5, 12, 51; see also
New Testament, Old Testament,
and names of specific books
Bohme, Jakob, 88
bridegroom, heavenly, 102
brothers, hostile, S8; see also Abel,
Cain, fratricide
Buddha, 58
Buddhism, Tibetan, 32


Cabala, 19n, 86
Cain, 12, 32, 39f, 50, 59; as copy of
Satan, 29f; see also Abel
castration, 83n
Catholic Church, and dogma of the
Assumption, 100, 103; and Protestantism,
103-04; on revelation,
51; see also Church
Charles, R. H., 60
chemical warfare, 89, 99
child, divine, see divine child
childhood, faith and, 85
China, 85n
Chochma, 25
Christ, and Antichrist, ix; apocalyp
tic, 770, 840; birth of, xi, 38, 41,
44, 52, 68, 77, 78, 86, 92; bride of,
96, 103; chthonic man, 38; and
Church, 85; and confidence/doubt
in God, 48-49, 67, 69, 71; and
consciousness, 97; crucifixion/
death of, 48, 5S, 56, 68, 70, 93;
demythologization of, 46; Ezekiel
as prefiguring, 59, 69; as God (incarnation)
see Incarnation; God's
right hand, x; as hero of myth,
44, 47, 68; historicity of, 44-45,
47; and Holy Ghost/Paraclete,
51, 69; imitation of, 82; immanence
of, 79; irascibility of, 46,
74-75; as Jewish prophet/reformer,
46, 67; as man, 44-45, 46-47;
and Mary, 37, 38; meaning of, xii,
68; as mediator/redeemer, 52, 56,
66, 68, 70-71, 93, 103; and morality
of evil, 95; perfection of, S7;
and philosophers' stone, 92; and
Satan, 47, 50, 78; as saviour (soter),
44, 67; second coming of, 78,
85; as Son of God, 48, 50, 52, 66,
68, 70, 71; as Son of Man, 68; supremacy
of, in Protestantism, 102;
as symbol, 47, 79; thousand-year
reign of, 85; totality/wholeness
of, 59, 68; see also Gethsemane;
Jesus; Logos; passion
Christianity, 104; ethics of, 54;
evangelical, 91; historical preparation
for, 67; Indian influence
on, 79; opposition of God/man
in, 93; spread of, 79
Christification, 108
Christ-image, 80
Church: doctrines of, 66; and
Holy Ghost, 71; see also Catholic
circle, representing heaven, 85;
squaring the, 92; see also mandala(
Clement of Rome, ix
Codices: Bezae, 72, 97n
collective unconscious, 103; St. John
and, 81; and visions, 99; see also
Communism, 67
completeness, as feminine, 33, 37
complexio oppositorum, x; self as,
81; sun-woman's son as, 77; see
also opposites
Conception, Immaculate, see Immaculate
conscious (mind) /consciousness, 53,
77; differentiation of, 107; ego-,
see ego-consciousness; and God,
11, 19, 42; masculine, in sun·
woman, 77; as moral criterion,
72; Yahweh's, 42; see also uncon
conscious mind: and religion, xii,
contract, between Yahweh and man,
8-9, 12, 21, 33, 41; see also cove
I Corinthians, (2 : 10), 54
covenant, 8, 21, 33; see also contract
creation, 5, 30, 32, 39; of man, 10f,
crocodile, 21
cross, 55; of the Mayas, 42n; a qua
ternity, 68; see also crucifixion
crucifixion, 55; between two thieves,
93; a quaternity, 63; see also
Cybele, 83n


Daniel (book), 59, 61; (7: 13), 59
David, 8f, 12, 20; consults oracle, 26
deja vu, 43
Deluge, the, 12, 50, 60/
delusional idea(s), see delusions
delusions, xiv
demythologization, of Christ, 46
destruction, man's power of, 97; of
the world, 50, 93
deuteros theos, 19
Dike, 23
Dionysus, 26, 42n
dissociation, 73; of conscious and
unconscious, 67
divine child, 79f, 82, 92, 94, 105f;
as symbol of self, 79
divine youth, 80f; see also dying
doctor(s): and religion, 92
dogma(s), of the Assumption, see
Assumption of Virgin Mary; Prot
estantism and, 105
doubt(s), go
dove (Christian symbol), 45
dragon: in St. John's visions, 76, 77,
dream(s), 42, 92, 98; archetypal, 107;
compensatory, 88; are natural, 58;
see also visions
dualism: in Christianity, x; see also
duality, xiv; see also God; opposites
duty, conflicts of, 54, 91-92
dying god(s), 26, 43, 81, 83; Christ
as, 48; mother of, 45


earth: feminine nature of, 86
Ecclesiastes, (9 : 16), 28
Ecclesiasticus, (24: 3-18), 25f; (24:
11, 18), 86
Eckhart, Meister, 88, 94
Eden, Garden of, 13, 31
ego, and unconscious, 79; see also
ego-consciousness, 79
Egyptian: mythology, 21, 35, 40, 43,
Elihu the Buzite, 6
Elijah, 66
Elohim, 11
enantiodromia, 37, 71, 82, 89;
Christl Antichrist, 85
English archbishops, 100
Enoch (patriarch), 61-67, 68-70, 73
Enoch (book), 59ff, 85; (7: 2), 59;
(7 : 3-6), 60; (9 : 5-11), 61; (22 : 2),
61; (40: 7), 62; (46: 1-3), 63; (47 :
4), 63; (48: 1, 4, 6, 7), 63; (49: 1-3),
64; (51 : 1, 3), 64; (54: 6), 64; (58 :
6), 64; (60: 10), 64; (71 : 5-6, 14,
17), 64f; (87f), 62
ens realissimum, xv
Ephesus: letter (Apocalypse) to
Church of, 74
epistles: New Testament, see names
of specific epistles; to Seven
Churches (Apocalypse), 74f
Eros, 33
Esau, 38
eschatology, 451
eunuchs, 83n
Evangelium aeternum, see gospel,
everlasting/ eternal
Eve, 29; as Israel, 31; as Lilith, 35;
as Sophia, 35; Second, 35; see also
Adam; First Parents
evil, 29f, 39, 49, 68, 70-72, 99; man
identified with, 94f; morality of,
72; see also good and evil; privatio
Evil One, ix; see also Satan
Exodus (22 : 29), 56
Ezekiel (prophet), 58f, 62, 64, 66, 68;
visions of, see vision(s)
Ezekiel (book), 59, 61, 69, 75, 86;
(1 : 18), 86; (1 : 26), 21, 58


face(s): four, of God, 61f
facts, psychic, xii
fairy tales, 92
faith, and rights of man, 30
fall: of the angels, 59; of man, 13,
29, 30, 34f; of Satan, 48, 62, 78
Faust, see Goethe
fear: of God, 11, 54, 57, 82f, 88f, 96,
99; salvation as deliverance from,
54, 66, 68
filius sapientiae, Son, 92f, 100
filius solis et lunae, 100, 106
First Parents, 13, 31, 37; see also
Adam; Eve
fishes: two, ix
Fishes, sign of the, 44; see also Pisces
fornication, 84
Franz, Marie-Louise von, Son
fratricide, 30, 38, 43; see also brothers,


Gabriel, 64
Galli, 83n
Gautama, see Buddha
Genesis, 29-35; (3: 15), 36; (5: 24),
65; (6: 31), 59; (22 : 1ff), 56
Gentiles, 11
Gethsemane, Christ's prayer in, 55
giants, 59f
God/Yahweh [i.e., the personal God
of the Old and New Testament
and derived or allied concepts;
for other concepts see entry gods
below]: affect aroused by, 4; antinomies/
opposites in, 15, 22, 54/,
57, 66, 91f, 96, 99; changes in con
cept of, xiii; as current of vital
energy, xiii; dark aspect of; 9, 19n,
49, 66, 68, 700, 88, 93; and David,
8f, 12, 20; double aspect/duality
of, 31, 7, 10, 210, 290, 49, 57, 66,
82, 88f, 920, 99; as Elohim, 11;
and Enoch, 590; -, and Ezekiel,
58f, 66; incarnation of, see Incarnation;
intention/desire to be
come man, 35, 42n, 47, 58/, 62,
94f, 98, 100f; and Israel, 12, 28,
31, 3M, 40f; and Job, 50; light
aspect of, 48, 71; as love / good
ness, 57, 68, 73, 81, 87; and man,
8, 93; and Noah, 12, 61; of Old/
New Testament, 3; a psychic fact,
102; sacred marriage, with Israel,
28, 31, 33; -, with Sophia, 31,
35, 86; and Satan, 13-15, 17, 19,
21f, 28ff, 40, 42, 470, 53, 56, 6gf,
72; and Sophia/Wisdom, 240, 29,
31, 330, 76, 86, 96, 100; as Summum
Bonum, 49, 57, 66; unconsciousness
of, 3, 10, 11, 14, 21, 42,
54; and Zeus, compared, 8
God-concept, 93n, 94n
God-image, xv, 94; in Cain and
Abel, 37; see also imago Dei
God-man, 35, 108; Jesus as, 37f, 108
Goethe, J. W. von: Faust, 83, 85,
good and evil, ix, 49, 95
gospel(s), everlasting/eternal, 83, 89,
96; synoptic, 45; see also John;
Luke; Mark; Matthew
Great Mother, 83n, 84; see also
Greek: -, on Old Testament, 24;
mythology, 24, 77f; matriarchal-
patriarchal elements in, 77


Hades, 61; as quaternity, 61
Hagar, 78
hand, right and left, of God, x
hate/hatred, 74, 87
hermaphrodite nature: of Adam, see
Adam; of primordial divine being,
100; of Yahweh/Sophia, 86
Hermes, 52
hermetic philosophy, coniunctio oppositorum
as real subject of, 92;
documents of, 106; see also al
hero(es): child-, 92; Christ as archetype,
44, 46, 68
Herod, 47
Herostratus, 89&n
hieros gamos/sacred marriage, 76,
77, 85f, 100; first step to incarnation,
100; Israel/Yahweh, 28, 31,
33; of the Lamb, 85; in pleroma,
35, 105; of son and mother-bride,
96; Sophia/Yahweh, 31, 35, 86
Holy Ghost/Spirit, 680, 96, 98; continuing
incarnation of God, 51,
52, 70, 94, 100f, 108; feminine
nature of, 45; Sophia as, 27; see
also Paraclete; Trinity
Holy Spirit, see Holy Ghost/Spirit
homo: altus, 75, 92
homoousia, 38
homunculus, 92
Horace, 95n
horse, white, 84
Horus, 21, 44, 77; four sons of, 21


imago Dei, 51, 55; see also God-image
Immaculate Conception, 36, 68n
Incarnation, 350, 380, 47f, 500, 66,
94f, 97, 108; cause of, 44; continuing,
51f, 70, 94, 98, 100, 101;
Egyptian, 35, 100; Enoch and, 63;
hieros gamos as first step to, 100,
105; only partially consummated,
37; preparations for, 61, 68; purpose
of, 39f, 44, 52, 57; Satan and,
48; see also Holy Ghost
incest, 12
India, 25, 58; influence on Christianity,
79; relations with Near
East, 25; see also philosophy, Indian
individuation, 93, 98, 105f; and
hieros gamos, 96
inflation, 108; before the Deluge,
Isaac, sacrifice of, 56; see also Abraham
Ishtar, 26
Israel: as bride of God, 28, 31, 33;
children of, 31, 41; people of,
29, 31, 40


Jacob, 38
James, M. R., Apocryphal New Testament,
72n, 97n
Jared, 65n
Jerusalem, heavenly, 66, 84; New,
85; numen of, 26
Jesus the son of Sirach, see Ecclesi
Jews, as chosen people, 12
Jezebel, 74, 87
Job (patriarch), x, 3ff passim, 94;
afflicted/tested by Yahweh, 13ff,
28, 46, 52, 66; doubted by Yah·
weh, 13f, 34; faith/trust in Yahweh,
5ff, 13, 16, 17, 22, 28, 34 ,94;
and incarnation, 35, 44, 47, 48,
52; vindication of, 7, 23, 28f, 43,
48, 57, 65; and Wisdom, 34, 43
Job (book), 365ff; dating of, 24, 58;
(1), 7; (2: 3), 28; (9: 2-32), 6;
(10 : 7), 6; (10: 35), 70; (13: 3,
15, 18), 6; (13: 25), 6; (14: 12),
70; (16: 19-21), 6; (19: 6-7), 6;
(19: 25), 7; 65; (27: 2, 5-6), 6;
(28 : 12), 34; (34: 12, 18, 19), 6;
(38 : 2), 15; (38 : 3), 18; (40 : 4-5),
5; (40: 7, 8-g), 18; (40: 12-14),
19; (40: 15, 19),41; (41: 34), 21;
(42 : 2), 20; (42 : 3-6), 20; (42 : 7),
John, St. (author of Epistles), 73,
76, 82, 87, 89, 91
John, St. (author of Revelation),
73ff, 77ff, 87ff, 91, 93f; in old age,
82, 94; see also Revelation (book)
John (gospel), (1), 52; (1 : 3), 38n;
(10 : 34), 51; (10 : 35), 70; (14': 6),
46; (14: 12), 51, 70; (14: 16!), 51,
69n; (14: 26),51; (16: 13), 51
I John (epistle); (1 : 5), 73; (2 : 1-2,
18f), 73; (3: 9), 73; (4: 1), 54;
(4: 3), 73; (4: 7-21), 87
John of Damascus, St.. Encomium
in Dormitionem, 96n
Judas, 48
Jung, Carl Gustav:
WORKS: Aion, ix, x, 24n; "On the
Nature of the Psyche," 75n


Kolorbas, 61
Lamb: in Revelation, 75, 77f, 80ff,
85, 96; marriage of the, 97, 100
Lamprecht, Karl, 12
lapis, see philosophers' stone
Leto, 76ff
Leviathan, 21, 64
Lilith, 31, 35
Logos, the, 25, 31, 50; Christ/Jesus
as, 38; wisdom identified with,
26; see also Nous
"Lord of this world," devil as, 72,
Lord's Prayer, 48ff, 55
love, 87
love-goddess, 26, 45
Lucifer, 32, 42, 89; see also Satan
Luke, Gospel of, (6: 4), 72, 97n;
(10 : 18), 48; (16: 8), 33n
Luria, Isaac, cabalism of, 20n
Lystra, 52


man: see also Adam, First Parents;
"higher," 95; modern, see modern
man; see also Christ, man,
cosmic; see also modern man
mana, xv
mandala(s), Enoch's, 61f
Mani/Manichaean/Manichaeism, ix
manikin, see homunculus
Mark, Gospel of, (3: 21), 47
marriage: sacred, see hieros gamos
Mars (planet), 69n
Mary, Annunciation of, 97; Assumption
of, see Assumption; as
Goddess, 37, 103; Immaculate
Conception of, see Immaculate
Conception; as mediatrix, 36, 100,
103; mother of Christ/God/Theotokos,
36-37, 38, 99-100; in pieroma,
37; Sophia as, 36, 38, 45,
80, 96; see also Virgin
masculine/feminine principle, 33,
37; symbols of, 85-86
Matthew, Gospel of, (19: 12), 83n;
(26: 39), 55
Maya character of Sophia, 27
Mayas, of Yucatan, 42n
mediator/mediatrix: Christ as, 53,
68, 70, 93, 103; "making peace between
enemies," 100; man as,
72; Mary as, 36, 100, 103; sunmoon-
child as, 106; sun-woman's
child as, 81; Wisdom (Sophia) as,
34, 36, 43
Mercurius quadratus, 61
Messiah, 44, 96; second, 78
Michael, 64
Mithraism, 103
modern man, 8f, 92; dreams of, 92;
see also art
Moira, 23
monotheism, x
morality, Christian, and collisions
of duty, 54
morning star, 69n
mother: conceived in sin, 37; of
dying god, 45; earth as, 86; goddess,
26; sun-woman as, 77f, 96;
see also Great Mother; Mary
motifs: archetypal, see archetypes;
mythological, xiv
myth(s), 73; religion and, 47
mythologem(s), in Assumption dogma,
105; see also archetypes
mythology: Egyptian, see Egyptian
mythology; Greek, see Greek mythology;
Persian, 13n


New Testament, 37, 490, 89; see
also Bible; Lord's Prayer; names
of specific books
Nicolaitans, 74, 87
Noah, 12, 61
Nous, 38; snake symbol of, 31; see
also Logos
numbers: see also quaternity; third;
numen, 98; of the Gentiles, 11; Wisdom
as feminine, 26
numinosity: of Christ, 57; of God-images,
xv; Job's knowledge, 15;
of metaphysical statement, 90


objectivity, absolute, 90
Old Testament, 37, 66; conception
of God in, 3; Greek influence on,
24; oracle trees in, 26; see also
Ten Commandments; names of
specific books
opposites, 54; in alchemy, 92; and
dogma of the Assumption, 103; in
God, 15, 22f, 57, 66, 91f, 99; pairs
of, see below; in St, John's visions,
88; in self, 81; severance/opposition
of, 86, 93; see also duality;
opposites, child/man, 95; Christ/
Antichrist, ix; conscious/unconscious,
106; see also Satan; God/
man, 93; see also good and evil;
see also enantiodromia
opposites, Christ as, 68, 77; and di
vine birth, 93; in God, 7, 54, 57;
in son of Sophia, 93; subject of
alchemy, 92; symbols of, 92, 98,
oracle trees, 26
Ormuzd, 13n
Osiris, 77; tree as representing, 26
"other side" of soul's life, see anima


papal rejection of psychological
symbolism, 101n
Paraclete, 51f, 94; expiatory, 52; as
legacy of the Son, 51, 69; as spirit
of procreation, 69; as spirit of
Paraclete (cont.)
truth, 51, 69, 71; as Wisdom, 27;
work in individuals, 71; see also
Christ; Holy Ghost
parthenoi, 83
Paul, St., 71, 73; epistles of, 45, see
also under names of specific epistles;
identified with Hermes, 52;
split consciousness of, 108
Pegasus, 84n
peregrinatio, 62
perfection: of Christ, 37; as masculine,
33; symbol of, 85
perfectionism, 33, 37
Pergamum, 74
peripeteia, 44
Perpetua, St., 80
Persian: mythology, 13n
Peter, St., 72
Phanuel, 64, 69
Philadelphia, 74
philosophers' stone, parallel of
Christ, 72; tetrameria of, 86
philosophy, Indian, 79; natural,
medieval, x
physician, see doctor
Physis, 102
Pisces: aeon of, 84, 85, 88; sign of,
44; see also Fishes
Pius XII, Pope, 96n, 99f
pleroma/pleromatic, S2, S8, 62, 6S,
89, 100; Bardo State, 32; Ezekiel
as son of man in, 66; hieros gamos
in, 35, 105; pre-existence of Yahweh
and Sophia in, 851
pneuma (Image), antimimon, 50;
circle as symbol of, 85; flexibility
of, 104; hagion, 45; see also Holy
Ghost; pneumatic nature of quaternity,
62; Sophia as, 24, 26, 31;
see also Nous
pope, see Pius XII
prayer, 94n
predestination, 45, 8S, 93
prima materia, 39; Adam produced
from, "29
primitive(s): and religion, xiii
"Prince of this world, " see "Lord of
this world"
privatio boni, ix, 21 n, 66
Protestantism, on dogma of Assumption,
100ff; and Holy Ghost,
101; a man's religion, 103; on revelation,
51; revolutionary role,
Proverbs (book), 24; (8: 22-31), 24f;
(8: 29f), 41
Psalms (book), 12; (82 : 6), 70; (89),
10, 12, 56, 66; (89: 28, 34, 35), 8;
(89: 46, 47, 49), 9
psyche, autonomous, xii; reality of,
psychologism, xiv, 101
psychology: and dogma of Assumption,
990; empirical, 46f; and nature
of God, 910; of religion, two
categories, 102
psychoneuroses, 92
psychopathology, and religion, 92;
visions and, 58
psychotherapy, and conflicts of duty,
92, and hostile brothers motif, 38
puer aeternus, 95; see also divine
Purusha, purusha-atman doctrine,
59, 79


quatemarium, see quaternity
quaternio, 61
quaternity, 85f; in alchemy, 61; di
vine, 63; in Ezekiel and Enoch,
58f, 61ff; Hades of Enoch as, 61;
pleromatic split in, 62; pneumatic
nature of, 61; of Son of Man, 68;
symbols of, 68, 75


rainbow, sign of contract, 12
ram, 75, 96
Raphael, 64
redemption, 52f; Christ's work of,
52, 55f, 71; doctrine of, ix; God's
work of, 72
Reformation, 95
religious statements: unrelated to
physical facts, xii
Revelation (book), 49f, 69, 72, 72ff;
(1), 78; (I : 16-17), 74; (2: 5, 20f),
74; (2 : 27), 77; (2 : 28), 6gn; (8 : 8,
19), 74; (4: 8, 6f), 75; (5: 6),
75; (6: 10, 17), 75; (7: 4), 49;
(7 : 9), 88; (11 : 19), 76; (12 : 1ff),
76f, 96; (12: 9), 78; (12: 16), 80;
(14: I, 4), 88; (14: 14, 17, 19f),
88; (15: 6f), 88; (16: 1ff), 88;
(18: 20), 84; (18: 22f), 84; (19: 5),
88; (19: 7), 447; (19: 11ff), 78;
(19: 11, 18, 15), 84; (19: 20), 50;
(20 : 8), 85; (20: 10), 85; (21 : 1,
2, 11, 16-27), 85; (u: I, 2), 85;
(u : 16), 69n; see also John, St.
(author of Revelation)
revelation(s), 50, 58, 71ff; John's,
82, 88; Paul's, 71
righteousness, 27; and Son of Man,
Roman Catholicism, see Catholic
Romans, Epistle to the, (8: 17), 51
Rome, Church of, see Catholic
Ruach Elohim, 26, 31


sacrifice, Christ's, 58, 68; of son, 56
Samiazaz, 59f
II Samuel, (1 : 26), xi; (5: 23ff), 26
Sapientia Dei, 24; see also Sophia/
Sardis, 74
Satan, 13ff; and Christ, 47f, 50, 78;
as dark God, 50, 71; daughter of,
see Lilith; eternal in damnation,
x; fall/destruction of, 48, 62, 6g,
78; and God/Yahweh, 13n, 15, 17,
21, 28ff, 40, 42, 48ff, 56, 69f, 72;
godfather of man, 21; God's left
hand, x; influence everywhere,
89; and Mary, 86, 108; Satans, in
Enoch, 62; thousand-year confinement
of, 85; see also Lucifer
Saturn (planet), 69n
Saul, see Paul
Scheffler, Johannes, see Angelus
Scheuchzer, Johann Jakob, 82
Scholem, Gershom, 20n
Scriptures, Holy, see Bible; New
Testament; Old Testament;
names of specific books
sea-monsters, 82; see also behemoth;
sefiroth, 19-20n
self, 441f; archetype of, 107; as totality,
81, 106
serpent: in Eden, 80; see also snake
Set, 44
Seth, III
seven, in Bible, 75, 88
Seven Seals, 75f
sexual life, denial of, 88, 86
shadow, 85; Christ and, 82
Shakti, 25
shards, Ig8cn, 85
Shekinah, 86
Shool, 64
sickle, 88
similarity, see homoiousia
sin(s), 78; Mary and, 86; original,
31, 86, 69, 98, 108
Smyrna, 74
snake(s), 31ff; in Eden, 31ff; see also
Socialism, 67
Sodom and Gomorrah, 50
Son of Man, 61ff, 78; as benevolent
aspect of Yahweh, 65; Christ as,
68; Enoch as, 64, 68f; Ezekiel as,
59, 62, 66, 68f; quaternity of, 68;
symbol of righteousness, 68
Song of Solomon, (4: 8), 26; (4: 8,
18-15), 26; (5: 5), 27
Sons of God, two, ix
Sophia/Wisdom: anamnesis of, 29,
61, 95, 97, 100; and Chochma, 25;
coexistence/oneness with God, 24,
33, 86, 100; cosmic, 80; and dogma
of the Assumption, 96; as
earth, 85f; in Ecclesiasticus, 25f;
as feminine pneuma, 24, 27, 31,
45; as Holy Ghost, 27, 45; as Jerusalem,
26, 76, 86; and Lilith,
31; as the Logos, 25; Mary as, 36,
38, 45, 80, 96; as "master workman:'
24, 29, 35, 38, 41; Maya
character of, 27; as mother, 45,
76, 80, 86, 95; as playmate of God,
29, 31; in Proverbs, 24, 41; and
Ruach, 26, 31; as Shekinah, 86;
as sun-woman, 76f, 84
soul(s), loss of, 67; testimony of the,
Spirit, Holy, see Holy Ghost/Spirit
sponsa and sponsus, 26
square, New Jerusalem as, 85; see
also quaternity
squaring the circle, 92
steward, unjust, parable of, 33n, 72
stone: "that is no stone:' 75; see also
philosophers' stone
summum bonum, 66; God as, 57;
Yahweh as, 49, 66
sun-woman, 760, 91, 96; son of, 92,
96; see also divine child
sword, 85
symbol(s), overdetermined, 84; of
totality, 59, 68, 95; and union of
opposites, 106; of unity, 85, 92,


Tammul, 26, 81
teleios (Image) (anthropos), 95, 106
Ten Commandments, 14, 21
Tertullian, Adversus Judaeos, 86n;
Apologeticus, 52; De testimonio
animae, xiiif
Tetramorph, 68
thieves, two, see crucifixion
third, 92; see also Trinity
Thyatira, 74
time, a relative concept, S8; see also
tohu-bohu, So
tree symbolism, 26, 85
trickster, Satan as, SI, S5
Trinity, 51
truth(s): psychic, xi


unconscious(ness), breaking through/
disturbance/emergence of, 580,
62, 73, 76, 94, 98, 107; vs. consciousness,
58, 78f, 94, 97, 106;
contents of, 42, 62, 75, 76, 92, 98;
of God, 11, 20f, 42, 54; God and
the, 106f; and God-image, 94; in
dividuation in, 106; longs for
consciousness, 98; possession by,
47; perceptiveness of, 24, 42, 92;
and religious experience, xiif; see
also archetype(s); collective unconscious
uniting symbols, 77, 92


Venus (planet), 69n
vineyard symbolism, 26, 83
Virgin (Mary): divine motherhood
of, xi, 44; see also Mary
virgins, male, 83
vision(s), 58; of Daniel, 59; Enoch's,
62, 7S; Ezekiel's, 21, 58, 7S, 86;
John's, 73ff, 82ff, 93, 96; of Mary,
99; Meister Eckhart's, 94; Pope
Pius XII's, 99


Weltanschauung, 67
wholeness, archetypes of, 107; man's,
97; symbol(s) of, 85
Whore of Babylon, 84
winepress, 83
Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach,
see Ecclesiasticus
Wisdom of Solomon, 30; (1 : 6), 27;
(1 : 10), 10n; (1 : 15t), 27; (2: 10-
19), 27f; (6: 8), 27; (7: 22ff), 27;
(8: 3, 6, 13), 27; (9: 10, 17), 27
woman: inferiority of, in Biblical
times, 33; and perfection, 33; in
Protestantism, 103; sun-woman in
Revelation, 76f


Yoga, 59
Zagreus, see Dionysus
Zechariah, (4 : 10), 10n
Zeus, 8, 52
Zion, Mount, 82
zodiac, ix
Zohar, 19-20n
Zurcher Bibel, 5n
Site Admin
Posts: 32381
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Return to Ancien Regime

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests