tariki

Yes, he is a loose cannon with no apparent capacity for self-criticism. I could go on ( and on and on ) but will end it there.

In true obedience there should be no ‘I want this or that to happen’or ‘I want this or that thing’but only a pure going out of what is our own. And therefore in the very best kind of prayer that we can pray there should be no ‘give me this particular virtue or way of devotion’ or ‘yes, Lord, give me yourself or eternal life’, but rather ‘Lord, give me only what you will and do, Lord, only what you will and in the way that you will’. This kind of prayer is as far above the former as heaven is above earth. And when we have prayed in this way, then we have prayed well, having gone out of ourselves and entered God in true obedience. But just as true obedience should have no ‘I want this’, neither should it ever hear ‘I don’t want’, for ‘I don’t want’is pure poison for all true obedience. As St Augustine says: ‘The true servant of God does not desire to be told or to be given what they would like to hear or see, for their prime and highest wish is to hear what is most pleasing to God. The above is from Meister Eckhart's talk on "True Obedience" from his "Talks of Instruction". Obviously couched in theistic language yet many in the non-theistic tradition of Buddhism recognise in Eckhart a "dharma brother". As I see it, much revolves around selflessness, in all its guises. Which is not to lose the self, but to know it for the first time.

Paradoxically, perhaps, my own journey away from "vaguery" and towards objectivity, was found and completed within the "mystical", even the "no-self" of Buddism. Maybe, as Thomas Merton saw, the "true self" ( of whatever Tradition or Faith) and the self we often identify with, particularly in the Western Tradition, are two different things. Whatever, goodbye to all my readers.

Anyway, whatever, as I see it, the "way" is eternal, forever available. If we want some Biblical authority, then "the lamb who was slain before the foundation of the world" will do. The whole idea of any human being needing some missionary of a particular Faith to turn up before being "enabled" is distorting. To think in this way appears to me to imply that Christianity is uniquely unique (!) and that every other Faith in the world is somehow, in someway, lacking. It further implies that Grace itself is not adequate ( and if such is not realised then, as I see it, Grace is not understood and the life of grace is not lived)

Possibly the indigenous population of America never realised they were now "enabled" until Columbus turned up on their doorstep.

For me each and every word comes under the umbrella of "Reality-as-is". Lived, not defined. Sorry. But yes, interesting to ponder upon the various ways each word is understood by different people....musing over a good pint of ale.

Thanks Paul. Excellent point about babies and bathwater. I think sometimes as old ways are felt inadequate they are totally thrown away. As you suggest, there can be a degree of natural evolution, a deepening. At the moment I am reading once again the Journals of Saichi, the Pure Land myokonin ( saint ) Truly, a very fundamentalist Baptist would empathise with virtually all of Saichi's cries, exclamations and insights. Yet after my own journey through Mahayana Buddhism, zen, Pure Land thought and practice, the Protestant Fundamentalist beliefs of eternal hell, election, damnation are just not found within my own heart, my own life, my own experience, in my own reading and contemplation of the texts. I realise that what is eternal, what is real, what is true, is the heart of faith, not the beliefs and assertions of a particular historically conditioned creed. What remains is Love, a process that holds us all. No one is excluded. It is the Journey itself. We just have to learn not to cling, not to seek for justification by "belief" no matter how venerated by any tradition.

Hi Iani, welcome. I think the faith of each of us is forever "emerging". Reality is infinite. "The culmination of knowledge is love"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8O1CcwYf79I The link above is to the video released in relation to the Grenfell tower block fire. It is really astonishing the sheer range of comments being made on social media and Newspaper websites. A world in miniature. From "banal" to "moving", from "I've never heard of any of them" to..............well, it just goes on. Really, the NT text comes to mind, the one that speaks of every judgement we make being in a sense a judgement on ourselves. In the UK the Grenfell fire could become a watershed for fundamental change. Change to what? One overwhelming image I have is of the firefighters entering the building when the instinct of anyone would be to get as far away as possible. It brought back the very same image from 9/11, when, as the public was running and screaming and panicking (as I would have been) the NY Firefighters were entering the Towers and walking up the stairs. "Heroes" is not adequate.

Thanks Burl, food for thought there. Me being under "eastern" influence, I detect some sort of impasse within Jung's thought. Namely, that he often implies that the "individual few" ( elitist or what? ) must remain firmly within our Western cultural roots , while at the same time speaking of the universal human psyche. Though he often alludes to "eastern" ways he certainly appeared wary of such things as "emptiness", "suchness" and the like. The individual is very much alive and well within Pure Land symbolism, which ( to coin a phrase from the UK's own Jeremy Corbyn ) is, contrary to Jung, for the "many not the few". Again, on Facebook, among my friends and family, signs of true community emerging from the wasteland! Rather than looking towards the "individual few" maybe keep our eyes open - or we may miss the on-going lessons and revelations of Reality-as-is. This is not some dismissal of Jung or even meant as criticism. He certainly appeared, late in life, as one who chopped wood and carried water.

As this is a Christian Forum perhaps the place for a few of those quotes........ "The Christian symbol is a living being that carries the seeds of further development in itself.......although its foundations remain the same eternally Christianity must be interpreted anew in each aeon other wise it suffocates in traditionalism" "What was once called the Holy Ghost/Spirit is an impelling force, creating wider consciousness and responsibility and thus enriched cognition." "A metaphoric death and rebirth can be found by taking up our own cross of opposites and living them out as fully and individually as Jesus did his." "Religion is a defense against religious experience"

Reading the biography, at one point Jung is recorded as saying that the last thing he wanted to do was create yet another "ism". "I am C G Jung, not a Jungian". So not a Jungian, let alone a Freudian! P.S. I would recommend the biography to anyone interested in any progressive form of the Christian Faith. The chapter on "Jung and Christianity" is full of quotable quotes, drawn from Jung's published books and his letters to various theologians.

Back to Jung. Here is one of the illustrations from the biography I am reading, a painting by Paul Ranson, dated around 1890. The text of the book says that Jung recognised that all religions reveal God. "I could give none preference over the other"

I think words often can't do justice to reality. They can lead us astray, thinking there is always a "thing" that corresponds to each and every word. I remember some words of Thomas Merton, which another described as a "beautiful paradox"...... This wordless simplicity, in which the works of quiet and holy people speak humbly for themselves. How important that is in our day, when we are flooded with a tidal wave of meaningless words: and worse still when in the void of those words the sinister power of hatred and destruction is at work. The Shakers remain as witnesses to the fact that only humility keeps man in communion with truth, and first of all with his own inner truth. This one must know without knowing it, as they did. For as soon as a man becomes aware of "his truth" he lets go of it and embraces an illusion. (from a letter to E.D.Andrews, an expert on the life and beliefs of the Shakers (or the United Society of Believers in Christ's Second Appearing). Andrews had sent Merton a copy of his book, Shaker Furniture, and Merton was responding to the gift) "responding to the gift".......I think everything truly valuable is a gift, given not earned, realised not attained. It is the very fabric of Reality-as-is. Neil Young said it another way in his song, "Love is a rose".... Love is a rose but you better not pick it It only grows when it's on the vine. A handful of thorns and you'll know you've missed it You lose your love when you say the word "mine".

Just read. Jung at 74......"I console myself with the thought that only a fool expects wisdom".

Meandering on through the biography of Jung, just a brief comment regarding an earlier post of Burl's regarding how to "read" Jung. Jung diverged from the base opinions and methods of Freud very early on, in spite of Freud ( the older man ) seeing him ( Jung ) as some sort of disciple/follower. Jung seemed to see the psychoanalytic methods and assumptions of Freud as being far too reductionist. Jung himself saw the approach of a human being to the numinous as being the fundamental catalyst of what he called "individuation". Freud seemed to see release of repression and the sexual drive as being far more primary, and most of that which Jung saw as the "numinous" as just illusion and fantasy. (Jung refused to accept the label of "mystic", which some sought to give him, insisting that his own approach was fundamentally empirical) Me, I remain wary of too much "calculation"

I'm sure there's a joke in there somewhere about dualism v non-dualism.........but my minds gone blank at the moment.

Thank you. I received a lovely key-ring ( plus the obligatory socks ) made of little silver nuggets spelling out the names of our two grandchildren, as well as "grandad". ( The socks do have "Best Dad in the World" on one pair and "No1 Grandad" on the others ) Happy Fathers Day to whoever!

"Not absolute" I see that as some sort of agreement. Buddhist non-dualism rests on "not two" rather than "all is one". To know reality is to live it, not to be able to pin it down in ideas and concepts all according to the dictates of logic or worse, a theological formula derived from a book. My old favorite..... O Saichi, will you tell us of Other Power? Yes, but there is neither self power nor Other Power What is, is the Graceful Acceptance only. For myself, any form of teleological anticipation corrupts the knowing. What "comes to be" will always be ungraspable.

No, in fact he wasn't. He broke with Freud quite early on.

So there is non-dualism and dualism. Dualism is the world of "either/or", non-dualism the world of "both/and". The first is a pretty static world where a "self" looks out in judgement of the world around it, that world itself a collection of things each with its own centre. The second is our world of "becoming", of "process", of inter-being. Also of empathy, mercy, grace. In Buddhism, the Dharmakaya. Not a deity on high, the ultimate "self", dispensing his/her understanding. Jung:- nothing worse can happen to one than to be completely understood. " The core of the individual is a mystery of life that is snuffed out when it is 'grasped' " ( a biographer of Jung )

Hi Burl, well, I said earlier in the thread that there were a lot of loose ends, things up in the air. That is how it is with me, I try not to judge as I stumble along, try more to empty myself and hear what another is saying. Difficult, but worth the effort, even if I fail. So I read on, allowing things to "become so of themselves". My "idea", as I have sought to explain umpteen times, is NOT that "all are one", but that things are "not two". Sorry if that difference is difficult for you to grasp. So really, I have no idea what you are striving to say. Sorry.

Just reading on Jung himself says that "only the wounded physician can heal" and then "only to the extent that he has healed himself". Not quite PC these days.........."he"? (But could perhaps point towards deeper areas needing to be healed) So it seems to be a process, on-going. Not sure if Jung saw an "end" to it in some sort of finished/completed "self". All might be revealed - or not. (I would stick with the journey itself being home) I was dipping into a little book on zen gardens, and it quoted from Dogen, and in a strange way this was relevant to this thread.......how's that for syncrionity? ( another Jung buzz word) Dogen said "who was it said that mind means thoughts, opinions, ideas and concepts? Mind means trees, fence posts, tiles and grasses" How is that relevant here? Not sure... Edit. PS Its "synchronicity"!

Ah ha Paul, I detect a note of cynicism...... Jung himself seems to speak of two parts to his life, the number 1 part of the persona presented to the world, the part of everyday concerns, ambitions and drives. Number 2 he knew as the "eternal" ( the collective unconscious, the archetypes - can't quite grasp these in any significant way at the moment ) ,that which just IS. I think he saw the integration of the two as the process of individuation.