Carl Jung and Tibetan Buddhism

January 26, 2008 – 11:12 pm

Kindly Bent To Ease Us

Carl Jung was convinced solutions to our most difficult conscious problems can arise from our unconscious. He based his assertions on numerous witnessings of the power of the unconscious to act upon the individual’s psyche. Not only was he convinced of this but clearly shows us how the first germinal stages of that communication from the unconscious arise.

s19. “To begin with the task consists solely in observing objectively how a fragment of fantasy develops.”

Jung notes that the unconscious typically communicates with our conscious self through something simple and seemingly unformed like a fantasy. But if our aim is healing we have to relate to the fragment of fantasy differently than we normally might. Broadly speaking we usually relate to fantasy fragments by either getting wrapped up in them or by completely rejecting them. Jung’s prescription is instead to unobtrusively and objectively observe the transformations of the fantasy. Yet even this simple step in aiding the natural healing processes brings us to other difficulties.

s19. “Nothing could be simpler and yet right here the difficulties begin.”

Jung then proceeds to give a list of all the reactions our conscious mind marshals to reject this little bit of fantasy. The array of defenses and attacks is quite impressive and usually very effective in squelching the first forms of the fantasy. But even if the first lines of defense have been overcome other reactions lay in wait. Carl Jung calls this obliteration of the first stirrings of the unconscious messages a mental cramp that needs to be massaged in some way to let the messages through.

He mentions several methods for getting to the fantasies, like writing, visualization, drawing or painting, working with clay, and even dancing. I myself years ago before studying Carl Jung’s works systematically worked through this process in learning to identify the unconscious promptings by developing writing techniques inspired by the Tibetan Buddhist Longchenpa of the 14th century.

I studied Longchenpa’s works in the series Kindly Bent to Ease Us, translated by Herbert V. Guenther, and what struck me the most were his poetic and quite beautiful depictions of the ways in which thoughts formed like clouds which one could almost lazily follow as they moved across the sky of the mind. Finding this image quite appealing I constructed very effective exercises for developing this method of observation of not only thoughts but of feelings and fantasy fragments.   

Based on this training and its results I can independently attest to the accuracy of Carl Jung’s description of the process by which the unconscious becomes conscious as well as the efficacy of the methods he briefly describes. These methods have been known and used for centuries to effectively connect the unconscious to the conscious mind. Of course his injunctions about who can benefit from these exercises and who can be harmed by them have to be taken seriously, since the exercises need to be modified to the character of each individual.

 

Breaking Impossible to Break Habits

January 20, 2008 – 3:10 pm

At the Altar of the Unconscious

s13. “The wise Chinese would say in the words of the I Ching: When yang has reached its greatest strength, the dark power of yin is born within its depths, for night begins at midday when yang breaks up and begins to change into yin.”   

Carl Jung covers the complex issues of polar opposites in a condensed way in this section but as always his concern is the practical application of these ideas in terms of psychology and therapy.    

s14. “The doctor is in a position to see this cycle of changes translated literally into life.” … “But perhaps I look at this with the eyes of a physician who has to mend the ills following in the wake of one-sided cultural achievements.”    

And further:    

s15. “Be that as it may, the fact remains that a consciousness heightened by an inevitable one-sidedness gets so far out of touch with the primordial images that a breakdown ensues.” … “Quite obviously the Chinese were able to follow this path because they never succeeded in forcing the opposites in man’s nature so far apart that all conscious connection between them was lost.”   

This brings us to the obvious question, how can we use this knowledge of polar opposites in the psyche therapeutically? Here Jung presents us with a dilemma:    

s18. “Now and then it happened in my practice that a patient grew beyond himself because of unknown potentialities, and this became an experience of prime importance to me. In the meantime, I had learned that all the greatest and most important problems of life are fundamentally insoluble. They must be so, for they express the necessary polarity inherent in every self-regulating system. They can never be solved but only outgrown.”   

The dilemma is solved at least conceptually when we note the polarities mentioned belong to a living system, a living person. A living person is who they are in virtue of polarities in their personality, thinking, feeling, and acting. They are the person they are at any moment mostly because of relatively one-sided attitudes in their personality makeup. Some of these one-sided views are conscious for the person and some are not. Some are conscious but only in one-sided ways. Others are social or even cultural values the person is never conscious of because they are so taken for granted. By conscious in this context I mean to be cognizant of alternatives which are real for others in other cultures or social circles.   

Normally a living person made up of relatively polarized opposites can’t simply change themselves upon hearing some good advice. The idea for change meets the brute realities of habit and history. History all too often invokes mental judgments while habit has an unconscious flavor to it. Potentially, we can conceptually change our mental judgments especially when we later see they were poorly constructed or simply limited in the first place. But habit with its unconscious parts is another matter. Habit doesn’t yield so easily to conceptual arguments, simply because it isn’t conceptual. Habit is something learned and repeated creating a groove running through our lives.   

Habit works because we forget it. We painstakingly learn all the facets of an action but in order to do the action we have to forget all the individually learned parts and do it as a whole action. Learning to ride a bicycle is a good example. We try to gain our balance on 2 wheels while simultaneously being bent forward, pedaling, steering, watching for obstacles, and gaining forward momentum. At first we can only focus on one or two items at a time and fall down a lot. But at a certain point we learn how to do all the actions needed and no longer have to focus on all the laboriously learned subtasks. Years later we can get on a bicycle and ride it easily long after we’ve forgotten the individual details first learned. If we actually had to consciously process every subtask in riding a bicycle we would fall!   

Like everything else though there’s a downside to habit. We may have developed habits that don’t work very well or are actually counter-productive to some new situation. While we can understand the need to adapt to the new situation changing old habits can be more work than learning new ones, because we have our old ‘programming’ to deal with.   Also in discussing individual habits we’re still talking about conscious personality processes we’ve developed, but how about processes that we don’t remember at all? How about character tendencies we recognize but absolutely refuse to believe apply to us? Complete denial can seem to be as effective as forgetting, but is this really true? The answer sadly is no. Complete denial in the face of repeated events of the same character is actually a form of extreme one-sidedness or illness. A poor solution is insisted on because the real solutions are feared or unacceptable.   

What’s happened in these cases is we’re locked in the magnetic attraction/repulsion of our character traits and those of others but don’t know how to change habits of personality that no longer work and have even become painful. Naturally, we attempt all sorts of manipulations to change the situation, other people’s responses, and even ourselves, but some things don’t seem to change. If we’re clever we may apply psychological manipulations like positive thinking, etc., but as the same or similar problems continue to manifest we come to realize we’ve come across something we can’t manipulate or effectively deny.    

At this point we may recognize we don’t understand the nature of the problem(s) or what we can do to solve them. We may either continue to fight or we can accept something we can’t fight. If the latter and if the unacceptable is seen to be outside of us then we feel we’ve been defeated. If the unacceptable is seen to be inside of us then we feel as if we’ve been abandoned by our god or ruling intuition and our sense of self has been crushed-sometimes seemingly irrevocably.   

Its only by undergoing these terrible trials and ordeals that we begin to see the need for a psychology that effectively defines the real processes needed for healing rather than accepting merely conceptual, or mechanical solutions to problems that have become habitual and even physical. Even pharmaceutical solutions will fail where for example a child is being overwhelmed by a parent. The specific type of problem requires specific solutions but real solutions to these hard types of problems according to Jung really arise only from the unconscious.    

s20. “We must be able to let things happen in the psyche. For us, this is an art of which most people know nothing. Consciousness is forever interfering, helping, correcting, and negating, never leaving the psychic processes to grow in peace.

The Collective Unconscious and the Buddhist Storehouse Consciousness

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.

An Inadequate Definition for the Collective Unconscious

January 13, 2008 – 5:51 pm

Semblance in Aggregate Forms

s11. “The collective unconscious is simply the psychic expression of the identity of brain structure irrespective of all racial differences.”

Jung appears to be offering a definition of the collective unconscious similar to the general Kantian argument that we all perceive the world in generally similar ways because we are structured similarly physically.

He doesn’t here attempt to go any further in explaining the basis for the collective subconscious. Neither does he address the fact that this form of Kantian argument is essentially an empty and sterile tautology which explains nothing. Constructively he does bring to our attention something we may not always fully appreciate, namely how comprehensively our lives are lived together in a common psychic space filled with similar bodies, needs, emotions, thoughts, etc.

The reason why I view the general form of the Kantian argument as empty becomes clear when I break it down to the form:

We share similar way of looking at things because we have similar features (bodies, brains, etc.)

I feel this could just as easily be:

We have similar features (bodies, brains, etc.) because we have similar ways of looking at things.

In other words pattern x implies pattern x.

Humorously someone might remark, some people look like their dogs so they must be like them.

Of course I’m not suggesting that the collective unconscious doesn’t exist, but only that this form of ‘explanation’ leaves us with very little. The overwhelming reality Jung is talking about is a common psychic space we all breathe and communicate in. It’s only this particular explanation of the collective unconscious that doesn’t stand up to critical review.