|Myths, symbols, and images common to European and Asian cultures point to underlying
structures of consciousness which possess enormous potential for spiritual understanding and
Antonio Moreno, O.P., teaches spiritual theology at the Dominican School of Philosophy and
THE influence of Asian culture and mysticism is becoming more and more widespread in the Western world. Carl Jung was one of the first psychologists to investigate this culture, the similarities and differences between the East and West, and the possibilities and advisability of adapting Eastern wisdom for the West. He concluded that, although the East has much to offer the West, the attempt by European peoples to appropriate Asian wisdom as a possible cure for spiritual and psychological distress is a futile and potentially dangerous undertaking.(1)
If we wish to pursue the question of whether Asian wisdom shares common characteristics with the West, we must first explore Jung’s theories of the archetypes and the collective unconscious: for these theories are crucial to understanding the psychological basis for parallelism found in these two vastly different cultures.
PARALLELISM IN THE EAST AND WEST: ARCHETYPES
In formulating his analytical techniques, Jung says that he was led unconsciously along the secret way that has been the preoccupation of the best minds of the East for centuries. His recognition of a remarkable parallelism — confirmed for him by his friend, Richard Wilhelm, the great Chinese scholar — gave him the courage to write about The Secret of the Golden Flower (Hui ming ching), a Chinese text “…which belongs entirely to the mysterious shadow of the Eastern mind. At the same time, and this is the extraordinary thing, in content it is a living parallel to what takes place in the psychic development of my patients, none of whom was Chinese.”(2)
Jung became convinced that the similarities he found between symbolisms of the East and West verified conclusions which he had derived from previous investigations of processes of the unconscious. On a few occasions, he even discovered in Asian writings certain elements he had failed to find in Western texts, for example, The Secret of the Golden Flower
contained exactly these pieces which I sought for in vain among the Gnostics… it is not only a Taoist text of Chinese yoga, but also an alchemical tract of prime significance …. It was that text that first put me in the direction of the right track. For we have in medieval alchemy the long-sought connecting link between Gnosis and the process of the collective unconscious, observable to us today in modern man.(3)
The discovery of similarities between myth motifs, dreams, images, and symbols in the East and West impelled Jung to postulate the existence of a deep common psychological layer in the unconscious. Jung called this common substratum the “collective unconscious.”
The collective unconscious is composed of archetypes. Archetypes are typical and universal forms of apprehension that reveal themselves as primordial images charged with great meaning and power. As structural elements “inherent in the unconscious mind;” archetypes alone can explain similarities in mystical motifs and images found among different cultures, and in both the past and present. “Whatever the structure of the unconscious may be, one thing is certain; it contains an indefinite number of motifs or patterns of an archaic character, in principle identical with the root ideas of mythology and similar thought-forms.”(4)
Thus Jung explains similarities between Eastern and Western cultures which defy theories of cultural migration; they are the result of common archetypes:
unlike the personal unconscious and its purely personal contents, the images in the deeper unconscious have a distinctly mythological character. That is to say, in form and content they coincide with those wide-spread primordial ideas which underlie the myth. They are no longer [of] a personal but a purely supra-personal nature and are therefore common to all men. For this reason they are to be found in the myths and legends of all peoples and all times, as well as individuals who have not the slightest knowledge of mythology.(5)
These archetypes, which belong to humankind and are therefore of a collective nature,(6) impelled Jung to suggest that in the unconscious mind we are all the same.(7) The human psyche possesses a common substratum containing the myths and legends of all peoples regardless of differences in culture or personal experience.(8) For Jung, the collective unconscious is the world of the Gods and spirits. Thus religion is connected, although not exclusively, with the unconscious: “The world of Gods and spirits is truly nothing but the collective unconscious inside me.”(9)
JUNG AND ELIADE
Jung was not the only scientist to accept the existence of archetypes. Mircea Eliade, the outstanding scholar of the history of religions who shared many views with Jung also stressed the special significance of archetypes. However, in Cosmos and History he warned readers of the distinction between Jung’s archetypes and the archetypes that appear in the history of religions:
In using the term “archetype,” I neglected to specify that I was not referring to the archetypes described by Professor C.G. Jung. This was a regrettable error …. For Professor Jung, the archetypes are structures of the collective unconscious …. As I have said, I use the term “archetype” just as Eugenio d’Ors does, as a synonym for “exemplary model” or paradigm.”(10)
Later, when he wrote Images and Symbols, Eliade’s approach to the unconscious had undergone a transformation, now sharing with Jung similar ideas regarding archetypes: “It is in the history of religions that we meet with the archetypes, of which only approximate variants are dealt with by psychologists and literary critics.”(11) Furthermore, Eliade acknowledged the significance of Jung’s discoveries and advised that the body of knowledge gathered in the history of religions be used for the purpose of depth psychology:
The same interest has been awakened by the discoveries of psychoanalysis and depth psychology, in the first place by the work of Professor Jung. Indeed, it was soon recognized that the enormous domain of the history of religions provided an inexhaustible supply of terms for comparison with the behavior of the individual or the collective psyche, as this was studied by psychologists or analysts.(12)
The archetypes discovered in the history of religions are indeed related to the models explained by Jung as parts to the whole, inasmuch as these archetypes are manifestations of the psychological religious dimension of the collective unconscious, principally of the archetype of the Self. The power of the unconscious and the importance of the history of religions appear in the so-called “boundary situations,” situations of critical human significance. In such situations both psychology and the history of religions help each other, and indeed share a common ground:
It is primarily by throwing light upon these boundary situations that the history of religions fulfills this task and assists in the researches of depth psychology and even philosophy …. By directing attention to the survival of symbols and mythical themes in the psyche of modern man, by showing that the spontaneous rediscovery of the archetypes of archaic symbolism is a common occurrence in all human beings, irrespective of race and historical surroundings, depth psychology has freed the historian of religions from his last hesitations.(13)
In other words, what Eliade found in history, Jung discovered in psychology. Jung observes the manifestations of the collective unconscious throughout the ages: archetypes appear not exclusively in religion, but also in literature, music, art, and even in the dreams and fantasies of patients. Eliade accepts Jung’s hypothesis, affords a valuable source to psychology, and even suggests a tentative explanation of the reason why archetypes appear:
Insofar as he [modern man] opposes himself to history, modern man rediscovers the archetypal positions …. By the simple fact that, at the heart of his being, he rediscovers the cosmic rhythms — the alternations of day and night, for instance, or of winter and summer — he comes to a more complete knowledge of his own destiny and significance.(14)
All of these reasons convince us to accept as real the existence of a common psychological stratum — the collective unconscious — which is composed of archetypes and is the same regardless of race or time in history. Because this phenomenon is also common to the history of religions, archetypes have major psychological significance for ecumenism. For, since the East and West share the same religious archetypes, we have found a common ground to start a dialogue.
The collective unconscious manifests its presence through symbols. The archetypes are buried in the unconscious, in its darkness, and cannot be known by direct experience. But symbols, their spontaneous language, can be observed and understood by consciousness. The study of these universal symbols, common to all times and all races, affords a valuable tool to the student of ecumenism. Jung warns, however, of the dangers of accepting uncritically the symbols of Eastern wisdom:
The widening of our consciousness ought not to proceed at the expense of other kinds of consciousness, but ought to take place through the development of those elements of our psyche which are analogous to those of alien psyche.(15)
Jung is suggesting that it is necessary to discover first the authentic archetypal symbols:
Therefore it seemed to me important above all to emphasize the agreement between the psychic states and symbolisms of East and West. By means of these analogies an entrance is opened to the inner chambers of the Eastern mind, an entrance that does not require the sacrifice of our own nature and hence does not threaten us with being torn from our roots.(16)
Hence Jung believes in a “transconscious disposition in every individual which is able to produce the same or very similar symbols at all times and in all places.”(17) Jung’s research led to important parallels with yoga, especially with Kundalini yoga and the symbolism of tantric yo a as fertile material for integrating the collective unconscious.(18)
For Eliade, symbolic thinking is rooted in the inner layer of our being, is consubstantial with human existence, and comes before language and discursive reason: “The symbol reveals certain aspects of reality — the deepest aspects — which defy any other means of knowledge …. Images, symbols, and myths respond to a need and fulfill a function, that of bringing to light the most hidden modalities of being.”(19) They may become mutilated or degraded, but are never extirpated nor ever disappear from the reality of the psyche. Furthermore, for Eliade, the unconscious is more philosophical and poetic than the conscious. It possesses a spiritual authenticity superior to conscious living.(20)
Eliade appreciated Jung’s pioneer work on symbols. On the one hand, the history of religions provided almost inexhaustible and valuable material for Jung. On the other hand, Jung’s hypothesis of the collective unconscious assists in understanding the archetypal symbols pertaining to the history of religions:
The same interest has been awakened… by the work of Professor Jung. Indeed, it was soon recognized that the enormous domain of the history of religions provided an inexhaustible supply of terms of comparison with the behavior of the collective psyche as this was studied by psychologists …. The psychologists have found excellent materials in our books …. On the other hand, it [the history of religion] is also obliged to take up the challenge lately presented to it particularly by depth psychology, which, now that it is beginning to work directly upon the historic-religious data, is putting forward working hypotheses more promising, more productive, or at any rate more sensational, than those that are current among historians of religion.(21)
The cosmic dimension of some archetypal symbols is the sure guarantee of their universality. It reveals the significance of their being rooted in nature. As Jung observed, “The contents of the unconscious, that is, the primordial images,… because of their universality and immense antiquity, possess a cosmic and supra-human character.”(22) This is not new, for even the Christian apologists were aware of the importance of manifesting the sacred through cosmic rhythms. The revelation conveyed by Faith did not dispel the primary meanings of the images; it simply added a new value to them. “Is there not a resurrection for the seed and the fruits?” So Clement of Rome observed: “Day and night show us the resurrection: the night descends, the day breaks; the day departs and night arrives.”(23)
In God and the Unconscious, Victor White brings to light the cosmic dimension of the Christian symbols, and the psychological impact they impart:
The Christian Scriptures and the Catholic rites… gained a quality and a sense of which my pastors had told me nothing: a sense of solidarity with creation, with the processes of nature, with the cycles of the seasons, dramatizations of the processes of vegetation they might be, but had not Christ himself drawn the analogy between the Christian self-sacrifice and the grain of wheat which must die if it is to bear fruit?… Moreover this gave me a new sense of solidarity with humanity as a whole.(24)
Solidarity with nature — who could have told us it would be so important for our spiritual life and now for ecumenism? Nature, in addition, is endowed with another quality: its therapeutical dimension, for nature heals. The religious symbols, which share the properties of nature, also possess a healing power. They are elements that restore the balance of mental health. Thus Jung: “This [mandala] is evidently an attempt at self-healing on the part of Nature, which does not spring from conscious reflection, but from an instinctive impulse.”(25) And emphatically, White: “Factors [collective unconscious symbols] so destructive when neglected or rejected, so healing when recognized and placated. But this, it is always found, can only come about by way of sacrifice …. Healing itself, Jung says, always comes in some wholly unexpected way from the unknown — like a miracle.(26) Through archetypes and symbols we not only share something which belongs to all peoples; we also share the common cosmos, the therapeutic healing power of nature, which is the same for everybody and ever present for all to use.
FINDING THE ARCHETYPAL SYMBOLS
Are archetypal symbols spontaneous manifestations of the unconscious? Is it difficult to find them? How is it possible to discriminate or separate these symbols from those others which may have a merely personal dimension? The problem becomes complicated by Jung’s pessimistic observation and repeated opinion, that “Medical investigation discovers an unconscious that is in full revolt against the conscious values, and that therefore cannot possibly be assimilated to consciousness.”(27) Eliade takes the warning seriously and reacts with ideas of his own:
The psychologist, C.G. Jung among others of the first rank, have shown us how much the drama of the modern world proceeds from the profound disequilibrium of the psyche, individual as well as collective, brought about largely by a progressive sterilization of the imagination …. To “have imagination” is to be able to see the world in its totality, for the mission of the Images is to show all that remains refractory to the concept: hence the failure of the man “without imagination”; he is cut off from the deeper reality of life and from his own soul.(28)
This serious warning is shared by other psychologists of the first rank. Joseph Campbell, for example, in his well known book, The Hero with a Thousand Faces, explains how the timeless universe of symbols has collapsed, and how the human heritage of ritual, morality, and art is in full decay. “The Gods are dead, and the lines of communication between the conscious and the unconscious zones of the human psyche have been cut, and we have been split in two.”(29)
Thus, the modern psyche is in rebellion; consciousness suffers from the sterilization of the imagination and from repression of spiritual values. Where can we search to discover the symbols whose magic heals, giving a sense of solidarity with nature, and with humanity as a whole? This is a part of the efforts of ecumenism and depth psychology. Jung searched these symbols in myth, literature, art, and music, fully aware of the thorny problem of discrimination. For Eliade, the solution lies in history: he proposed to get back to the history of religions to find in its treasures the authentic archetypal symbols:
The problem cannot be resolved by depth-psychology alone, for the symbolisms which decipher the latter are for the most part made up of scattered fragments and of the manifestations of a psyche in crisis, if not in a state of pathological regression. To grasp the authentic structures, and functions of symbols, one must turn to the inexhaustible indices of the history of religions; and yet even there one must know how to choose. (30)
THE RELIGIOUS ARCHETYPE: THE SELF AND MANDALAS
The most important religious archetype is the Self. It has appeared in the East and West throughout the centuries, and reveals itself spontaneously even in modern man.(31) Jung discovered the Self in the East as a spiritual idea. In the West this archetype stands for a psychic Totality, comprising conscious and unconscious phenomena, raised to a synthesis symbolically expressed as the coniunctio oppositorum:(32) “If we conceived of the self as the essence of psychic wholeness, i.e., as the totality of conscious and unconscious, we do so because it does in fact represent something like a goal of psychic development, and this irrespective of all conscious opinions and expectations.(33)
The self reveals itself in a symbol that Jung found appearing over the centuries: “On account of the remarkable agreement between the insights of yoga and the result of psychological research, I have chosen the Sanskrit term mandala for this central symbol.”(34) In Asia, mandalas are symbols of contemplation birth places, vessels of birth, lotus flowers in which Buddha comes to life. In India, mandalas are circles. In Tibetan Buddhism, they are instruments of prayer and symbols of order. In Europe, mandalas produced in Christian countries in the Middle Ages typically show Christ in the center of the four Evangelists, or their symbolic representations(35) In the modern West, the mandala seems to be a creation of fantasy, and an expression of a peculiar attitude that Jung calls religious. The Chinese “Golden Flower” is a mandala symbol which Jung encountered frequently in the dream material brought to him by his patients.(36) This symbol is found among contemporary people, and when it is spontaneously produced it appears to have mental healing effects. Hence Jung says that at a certain stage of psychological treatment, patients sometimes paint and draw mandalas spontaneously because they feel the need to compensate for the confusion in their psyches by means of representations of an ordered unity.(37)
The picture is a little disturbing, however, concerning modern mandalas. Jung compares Buddha sitting in the lotus position with Christ, and logically, one would expect Christ to be en throned in the center of the Western mandalas, as was the case in the Middle Ages. But our modern mandalas contain no Christ-figure, still less a Buddha in the lotus position.(38) This intriguing phenomenon poses problems of great interest even beyond psychology. Jung deals with it in the third chapter of Psychology and Religion: “It is evident that in the modern mandalas man — the complete man — has replaced the deity …. The unconscious produces a new idea of man in loco dei, of man deified or divine, imprisoned, concealed, usually dehumanized, and expressed by abstract symbolism.(39)
Does this mean that the collective unconscious of contemporary humans has changed and is now less religious and more secular? Are we undergoing a psychic transformation, a sequel to Nietzsche’s death of God? Jung hints at an explanation of this phenomenon as the continuation of the Gnostic trend throughout the Middle Ages under the disguise of alchemy. (Eliade dis agrees with Jung, however, regarding the importance of Gnosticism in Christianity.)(40) After a long and obscure speculation, Jung concludes,
In the lights of such historical parallels the mandala either symbolizes the divine being, hitherto hidden and dormant in the body and now extracted and revivified, or it symbolizes the vessel or room in which the transformation of man into a divine being takes place.(41)
This conclusion is indeed obscure and seems to contradict the original question of mandalas without God in the center. The first solution appears to be closer to Asian mysticism and religions: “The Buddhist still reposes on the eternal ground of his inner nature, whose oneness with Deity, or with universal Being, is confirmed in other Indian testimonies.”(42) The second solution is closer, perhaps, to Christianity: “The Christian during contemplation would never say, “I am Christ,” but will confess with Paul: “Not I, but Christ lives in me.(43) But in both, and this seems to be the real interpretation, Jung hints at what is very dear to him — namely, a possible deification of the soul or whole individual — though he vehemently denies this imputation.
Another example of archetypal symbol is the symbol of death and rebirth. This symbol, prominent in Christian baptismal rites, is found also in Asia. The Chinese philosophy of Yoga, and the Secret of the Golden Flower, demand a detachment from the world which is a natural preparation for death and for the birth of a psychic spirit-body that insures the continuity of the detached consciousness.
THE ASSIMILATION OF CHRISTIANITY
It is remarkable to observe that both Jung and Eliade ascribe the rapid acceptance and widespread diffusion of the Gospel to the archetypal character of Christian symbols. Theologically speaking, the grace of God and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit are the main factors accounting for the rapid growth of the early Church. But we must also admit that this growth was no doubt fostered because the Christian symbols are archetypal, and fit perfectly the needs and manifestation of the collective unconscious where they found a fertile soil. Once again, Eliade emphasizes the universality of the Christian message and symbols:
We may even wonder whether the accessibility of Christianity may not be attributable in great measure to its symbolism, whether the universal Images that it takes up in its turn have not considerably facilitated the diffusion of its message …. All the slayers of dragons were assimilated to St. George or to some other Christian hero; all the Gods of the storm to holy Elijah. From having been regional and provincial, the popular mythology became ecumenical. It is, above all, through the creation of a new mythological language common to all the populations who remained attached to their soil… that the civilizing mission of Christianity has been so remarkable …. Even today, in popular Christianity, there are rites and beliefs surviving from the neolithic, the boiled grain in honor of the dead, for instance.(44)
The Christian symbols are assimilated easily by the archetypes of the unconscious. For example, Jung finds that the Mass fits perfectly the psychological needs of the unconscious: “If I have any aim at all apart from scientific truth, it is to show that the most important mystery of the Catholic Church rests, among other things, on psychic conditions which are deeply rooted in the human soul.”(45) The manifestation of the unconscious Christian psyche is, therefore, a revelation of the unknown by means of symbols. The symbols of Christianity are revelations of the unknown Christian psyche, which shares archetypal images common to humanity.
From the psychological viewpoint, Jung sees in the person of the Redeemer a collective figure fulfilling the expectations of the unconscious of the people who lived at that time. Christ personifies the collective expectations of the unconscious because he lived the concrete, personal life which in all essential features had at the same time an archetypal character: the life of Christ is for Jung a perfect expression of the needs of the archetypes of the unconscious. For example, Christ represents a divine or a heavenly king, a glorified man, a son of God unspotted by sin, the first Adam before the Fall, when Adam was still a pure image of God. Christ is the perfect symbol of the archetype of the Self. Hence, “He becomes the collective figure whom the unconscious of his contemporaries expected to appear.”(46) He is the Anthropos.(47)
Some may believe that this psychological digression misses the point. Psychology, it is true, can never replace theology or faith. We believe by faith and not by psychology that Christ is human and divine. But this extraordinary dogma that shapes our lives at the same time shares an affinity with the psychological needs of the unconscious. The psychological dimension tells us that it is good to believe, it fits the needs of the unconscious, and, at the same time, it tells us that we share symbols with other religions. From myth to religion to Christianity, this is the remarkable evolution of worship. It entails a continuity and a wisdom. We are proud of our unique religion, and we know that Christianity shares archetypal images with the rest of mankind. For example, Victor White explains how the symbol of the dying king is universal: “The old symbols and images and the rites which we associate with the dying gods are still brought forth spontaneously in the dreams of modern people. And are still, consciously or otherwise, immensely potent in shaping their life.(48)
In other words, Christianity did not drop ready-made from the sky, without roots in the earth, or in the perennial needs of the human psyche. On the contrary, the symbols of the collective unconscious underlie all religions, which we believe are fulfilled in Christianity. As Georges Berguer observes, “Jesus had incarnated in his death and resurrection an inner experience that had existed potentially for centuries in the human soul, but that had never passed beyond the sphere of the dream. He translated into life the secular dream of the peoples.(49)
The struggle of spirituality to transcend the bonds of matter is a common effort in both East and West. According to Jung, the same pneumatic human person is produced in the East and West, although the practices by which psychic rebirth is attained are different. For example, the Chinese attempt to produce the spiritual person by symbols and magical practices; the European by the exercise of the Christian way of life.(50) Jung observes that East and West share an important purpose in common: “Both make desperate efforts to conquer the mere naturalness of life. It is the assertion of mind over matter, the opus contra naturam a symptom of the youthfulness of man, still delighting in the use of the most powerful weapon ever devised by nature: the conscious mind.”(51)
This opus contra naturam in the Eastern religions is similar to that of Western spirituality, but it requires the abolition of the physical and psychic man (i.e., of the living body and dhamkara’) in favor of the pneumatic man. One instance of the supremacy of spirit over matter is mysticism, which in the East and West pursue identical goals: the shifting of the center of gravity from the ego to the Self, from man to God. For example, the life of one of the Holy Men of India, Shri Raman, reveals that he was more or less absorbed by the archetype of the Self, a process which to the Indian is one of becoming God. In the West, the Exercitia Spiritualia of St. Ignatius of Loyola reveals a similar striving: it subordinates “self-possession” as much as possible to possession by Christ.(52)
In comparing Western mysticism with Yoga in India, Jung sees that the latter demands that “Man must be free and without ideas, released from all attachments and empty of all creatures.”(53) This radical emptiness is similar to the extreme detachment required by some European mystics like Meister Eckhart, John of the Cross, and the anonymous author of the Cloud of Unknowing. Not all the Western schools of spirituality, however, demand such crucial emptiness from all creatures.
For Jung, both East and West approach in similar terms the necessary transformation of the ego, which must be taken over by another subject which appears in its place. This, according to Jung, is a well-known religious experience which in the West demands blind faith, and in the East, the purification of the ego, which is replaced by the original man.(54) The Zen experience of Satori has no parallel in the West, Jung observes, though it may correspond remotely to John of the Cross’s experience of dark transformation, of “emptying oneself of images and ideas.”(55) Jung grants that the correspondence between Satori and Western experience, however, is limited.(56)
Naturally, the role of theology in ecumenism is most important and far from an easy one. It is the function of this sacred science to search for common ground among religions possessing a variety of different concepts and rituals concerning God, as well as different dogmatic formulations. From the psychological viewpoint we can be optimistic, for we have a common stratum shared by humanity as a whole composed of archetypes and their symbols which we have called the collective unconscious. This provides us with a bridge, a channel for understanding the nature of the psyche in connection with religion. Symbols, images, and archetypes make the dialogue possible, although not easy. Mandalas, for example, are common in the East and West, although their contents are not, as explained above. The symbol of death and rebirth is shared by all humanity. But the content of the symbol of death and resurrection of Christian baptism differs from that of Hinduism or other Asian religions. This latter problem belongs to theology which, in this instance, faces an almost insurmountable task.
Even from the theological viewpoint, however, the knowledge of archetypes and symbols casts light on our own religions, for through them we learn the universal and cosmic qualities of the images and symbols of Christianity, and their connection with myth and other ways of worship. Furthermore, Christianity is not a religion isolated from others as we used to believe in the past. We share elements with other religions which help us to understand better both those religions and our own. As Victor White observes, through archetypes and symbols, our understanding of scriptures and rites is enhanced by a sense of solidarity with creation, with the processes of nature, and with humanity as a whole. We are not isolated, but rather share in the living part of a mysterious whole. The world is becoming smaller and smaller, we move faster and faster, and the inevitable mixing of religions and cultures is part of this movement.
- Antonio Moreno, “Jung, Oriental Wisdom, and the West,” Communio (Spring, 1980): 56-71.
- C.G. Jung, The Secret of the Golden Flower, trans. by C.F. Byanes (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1965), pp. 86-87.
- Ibid., p. xiv.
- C.G. Jung, The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, trans. by R.F.G. Hull (Bullington Series XX, New York: Pantheon, 1958), Vol. 11, p. 490.
- Ibid., p. 573.
- Ibid., 9,1, p. 4.
- Ibid., 9,1, pp. 3-4: “I have chosen the term “collective” because this part of the unconscious is not individual but universal: in contrast to the personal psyche, it has contents and modes of behavior that are more or less the same everywhere and in all individuals.”
- Ibid., 13, pp. 11-12.
- “On the Tibetan Book of the Dead,” Ibid., 11, p. 525.
- Mircea Eliade, Cosmos and History, trans. by Willard R. Trask (New York: Harper Torch Books, 1959), viii-ix.
- Mircea Eliade, Images and Symbols, trans. by Philip Mairet (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1961), p. 21.
- Ibid., p. 29.
- Ibid., pp. 34-35.
- Ibid., p. 36.
- The Secret of the Golden Flower, pp. 136-39.
- Ibid., p. 136.
- Collected Works, 9,1, p. 384.
- Ibid., 11, p. 537.
- Images and Symbols, p. 12.
- See Ibid., pp. 13-16.
- Ibid., pp. 29-30.
- Collected Works, 6, p. 202.
- Cited in Luis Beirnaert, “La dimension mythique dans le sacramentalisme chretien,” Eranos-Jahrbuch, xvii (1949), p. 275.
- Victor White, God and the Unconscious (Cleveland: Meridian Books, 1965), pp. 235-36.
- Collected Works, 9,1, Appendix, p. 388.
- White, op. cit., p. 244.
- Collected Works, 13, p. 13.
- Images and Symbols, p. 20.
- Joseph Campbell, The Hero with a Thousand Faces, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1973), p. 388.
- Images and Symbols, p. 37.
- Collected Works, 9, ii, pp. 31, 34, 268, 355, Cf., Ibid., 11, pp. 307, 502, 508.
- Ibid., 5, p. 138. Cf., Ibid., 12, pp. 25-27.
- Ibid., 11, p. 582.
- Ibid., p. 573.
- The Secret of the Golden Flower, pp. 99-101.
- Ibid., p. 101, Cf. Collected Works, 9, i, pp. 130, 355.
- Ibid., 11, p. 574.
- Psychology and Religion, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975), p. 106.
- Images and Symbols, p. 157.
- Psychology and Religion, p. 112.
- Collected Works, 11, p. 575.
- Ibid., p. 574.
- Images and Symbols, pp. 168 and 174.
- Collected Works, 11, p. 267.
- Ibid., p. 154. Cf., Ibid., pp. 88-89.
- Ibid., p. 185. Cf., Ibid., p. 155.
- White, op. cit., p. 234.
- Georges Berguer Some Aspect of the Life of Jesus trans. by Eleanor Stimson Brooks and Van Wyck Brooks (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1923).
- The Secret of the Golden Flower, p. 125, Cf., Collected Works, 10, p. 67.
- Ibid., 11, p. 493.
- Ibid., p. 581-83.
- Ibid., p. 545.
- Ibid., p. 546. Cf. p. 549.
- Ibid., p. 547. See John of the Cross, Collected Works, Dark Night of the Soul, trans. by Kieran Cavanaugh, O.C.D. and Otilio Rodriguez, O.C.D. (Washington, DC: Institute of Carmelites Studies, 1979).
- Collected Works, 11, p. 548.