Some excellent explanation of Jung's ideas

I decided to start looking up what people have to say about Jung's ideas concerning God. Here's an essay written by a woman who was the president of the Jungian Center for the Spiritual Sciences:

• Jung on God: Key Features

I've run across many of these quotes and more in my reading, but in a disorganized way, and it's hard to remember all of it. It's nice to find it put together like this, and especially after learning so much about the symbolism of the Bible.

Closely related to religion:

• Jung on Myths and Mythologems

The more I read on these subjects the clearer it becomes why Jung was shunned while Freud was so enthusiastically embraced, despite the fact that on most issues Jung was right and Freud was wrong. Jung's greatest discoveries were just too radical. They severely upset both the religious groups and the atheists and materialists. Well, that's just about everybody in the modern world! So he continued to face cancellation and shaming for the rest of his life, as truth-tellers often do. There's a relevant story about Socrates, called Plato's Allegory of the Cave, about that. If you tell truths that the wealthy and powerful don't like, they'll make you drink the hemlock.

Jung had friends and acquaintances in the clergy. They would enthusiastically accept and endorse many things he said, but at some point there would come a break and some of them turned bitterly against him. Essentially the denominations are like gangs, each with their own turf, and he strode boldly across all of them. He said that God isn't out there, for the most part he's inside the psyche. The deeper I go the more I begin to see that some of the patterns the Pageaus talk about are philosophical and sociological, but many of them are psychological. In fact the reason people always saw religious visions and revelations as coming from out there is that we aren't capable of directly seeing the contents of the unconscious, we can only see them through mechaninisms like projection. Just as we project our own worst traits (the shadow) out onto other people and then try to scapegoat them, we also project out our most powerful visions of goodness. So anything that comes to us from that mysterious realm we call the unconscious seems to be coming from out in the world or from beyond it.

In fact in many ways Jung did the same thing Jesus did—they both staged a radical rebellion against orthodox forms of religion and said the Kingdom of Heaven is within you. I'm not saying Jung was the Second Coming or anything. He well understood that people were going to accuse him of that kind of hubris and he warned against it. He said he's no kind of prophet or messiah, and had no interest in creating a religion, but was afraid many of his followers would see him that way. And of course he frequently gets accused of usurping a religious throne, because of the nature of the material he was working with. The main difference is, as I see it, he made no metaphysical claims. He never spoke about God, but only about the God-image inside, which is the archetype he named the Self, based on the Atman (which means self) of the Hindus.

Atman is a Sanskrit word, defined in simple terms as an individual’s inner self, spirit or soul. The concept of Atman as the true self is considered to be the first principle of Hindu philosophy, particularly according to the Vedanta tradition.
Source
​

And of course he wasn't only pissing off the religious groups, but also the atheists and materialists. He basically said that the core of religion has always been true and is necessary, but that it's always been something inside us rather than outside.

Yes, yes he did. He'd step off his Harley and say things like "Dudes, you've heard it said an eye for an eye, but I say unto thee that if you get bitch-slappethed, offer your ass for the kicking."

And he gave a single commandment that pretty much rendered the original ten commandments obsolete, if everyone were capable of following it.

He was constantly saying the old ways were outdated, and he was offering new ways.

Actually I'm not sure if what Jesus was overthrowing was some of what God had laid out previously, or if it was the way it was being currently observed by the modern (at that time) churches. I *think* an eye for an eye is from the OT, right? One thing Jung continually stresses is that God evolved throughout the Bible. The God of the New Teastament is definitely kinder and gentler than the fire and brimstone God of the Old Testament. And Satan is a separate character in the NT, as if God's dark side had split off and taken on life, so God was purified and now seen as all good. But originally it was God himself who brought plague and pestilence and smote with fire and brimstone, not a devil.

Moneylenders in the Temple was definitely not God's doing, that was the church itself having degraded over time from what it once was. So I'm not at all sure what Jesus was rebelling against, if it was the older ways of God himself, or the way worship of him had degraded.

Ok—well said. I don't know the Bible very well, though when you mention those things I do remember them. I had forgotten he internalized the commandments. When I said he offered a single commandment that could replace all the original ten I meant "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That's also internal, whereas the ten commandments are external laws. Jesus' way must be taken on voluntarily, but the original ten commandments are laws that can be applied externally, and punishments meted out if necessary. And some people will never voluntarily assent to certain laws, so will only respond to punishment.

What about an eye for an eye? Did that come from God, or was it just the way the old-school Hebrews took care of business?

"I’m not sure that Jesus offered the golden rule as a replacement of the other commandments,"

No, that wasn't explicitly said, but if you really take the Golden Rule to heart, then you don't really need any other laws or commandments. If you can really treat people with the full dignity and respect you want them to treat you with (what I've heard Peterson call "The best in me aiming at the best in you"), the rest will fall into place. You won't rage at people or lust after them or any of the rest of it. But I suppose that only covers some of the commandments, and not the ones about not taking any other god before me etc.

So it sounds like the Eye for an Eye thing didn't come from God, but was Hebrew tradition or secular law. But wasn't it mentioned when Jesus said (I'm paraphrasing) "You have heard it said an eye for an eye, but I tell you if your cheek is struck then turn the other cheek." In other words, as I understand it, the eye for an eye policy brings endless retribution and revenge. He stole from me, now I'll steal from him. And then he's gonna get mad and steal from me again. And so on, and so on... It promotes the endless cycle of revenge and violence. But Jesus was saying somebody has to stop the revenge and the violence. Don't do unto him what he did unto you, instead show him the kindness and non-violence you want him to return to you, even if you know he never will. At least that's my thoughts on it.

Here's the whole quote:

"Matthew 5:38-48 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."

Oh, I didn't realize you had already posted.