January 13, 2008 – 5:57 pm
Affine Evolution of the Libido
s12. “In purely psychological terms this means that mankind has common instincts of ideation and action. All conscious ideation and action have developed on the basis of these unconscious archetypal patterns and always remain dependent on them.”
Considering the question of the common origins of the collective unconscious further I’m reminded of what the Buddhist’s long ago called the Alaya or storehouse consciousness. They held that all the attributes comprising consciousness were held in a potential state separate from any particular beings and that particular beings have their arising and ending in this potential matrix.
When we ask what these ‘attributes’ actually are we find that according to Buddhist psychology they are not similar to the material elements of natural science but rather are types of perception/consciousness. The Buddhist’s called these skandas or aggregates of perception/ consciousness and they correspond to 6 or 8 types of consciousness depending on the school of Buddhism. Of these the first 5 correspond to our normal 5 senses while the 6th refers to our everyday randomly associative stream of thinking. In the Yogacara school a 7th consciousness refers to the reactive and self-poisoning mind while the 8th is the Alaya or storehouse consciousness.
Attaining to the Alaya or storehouse consciousness wasn’t the goal of the Buddhists. The storehouse consciousness was instead considered the soil as it were, in which the seeds of the sense of independent individuality could develop. As the Buddhist goal was to become free of the delusions of a permanently self-existent self and the necessary sufferings it entails they naturally wanted to be free of the processes having their origins in the storehouse consciousness.
To my best knowledge the above account is accurate, but it doesn’t take into account the problems inherent in any salvation-based, monastic and non-worldly types of religions. When people attempt to escape the world due to the pain it causes them and others, they typically aim to go to another world (presumably much better as in Christian salvation) or to cease to exist as a separated and suffering being as in Buddhism. There are also of course other alternatives and Buddhism argues against its being a religion. There is I believe some validity to this claim, but in any situation where you have people attempting to escape an intolerable situation and those people become monks performing rites for others you have basically what I believe would be an organized religion with a priestly caste.
Returning to Jung we see his definition of a trans-personal collective unconscious is similar functionally to the Buddhist definition of a storehouse consciousness. The five skandas as aggregate forms of not fully self-conscious but still sentient perception/feelings are constantly active, forming and reforming, arising in and falling from normal consciousness. Jung’s theory of the collective unconscious is equally motile. Elements of consciousness continually arise from the unconscious and fall back into it in seemingly mysterious ways. Likewise the Buddhist storehouse consciousness only potentially supports convictions of individual existence as soil supports a seed while Jung’s collective unconscious exerts pressure upon us through instinctual, mythological, and cultural forces from the ground up as it were.
It seems to me how Jung and the Buddhists differ is in their aims for the storehouse consciousness. Jung seeks to explore and work with the dynamics of the collective unconscious while the Buddhists seek to free themselves from the poisonous tendencies of mind by recognizing their fundamentally impersonal nature and no longer indulging in them. The first aim is primarily scientific and psychological while the second is soteriological or aimed at salvation/freedom.
2 Responses to “The Collective Unconscious and the Buddhist Storehouse Consciousness”
I like the openness of your conclusion and the opportunities for thought it provides.
The Buddhists seek to free themselves from the poisonous tendencies just where the Jungian psychoanalysts eagerly dive into the core of the dynamic! Of course, one could immediately polarize and choose just one of these as the “right” way but both offer creative viable viewpoints and, to me, it’s really interesting and useful to consider both as valid when viewed from the perspective of their origins.
By Kimm on Jan 20, 2008
Yeah, that’s right. Jung I believe later in section 2 says that he’s trying to talk about these issues in abstract ways simply because he knows how people reading what he has to say will draw mechanical formulas from it which will be wrong more often than not!
I would guess what he’s pointing to is more akin to surfing — surfing the Tao! rather than needle pointing or fixing a car.
By admin on Jan 20, 2008