wonder that the pattern should appear with such frequency in ritual, myth, and other
forms of symbolic activity representing the totality of the cosmos. Little wonder, too,
that Jung should have adopted it as the matrix for his map of the psyche of the whole
and found it mirrored microcosmically in the interplay among psychic contents.
To make this ‘dynamic monism’ work, all that was needed was to insure that such
contents as reflected the elemental functions of the psyche be read as symbols,
bracketing any literal reference to any outer reality, which would interfere with the
purity of the form.^27 This Jung achieved by seeing the collectivity of an unconscious
symbol as a measure of its truth, depth, and reliability. The symbolism of the Self as
a totality arranged as a complex of opposites is not, therefore, a pure conclusion drawn
from an objective presentation of the facts, but an a priori condition for interpreting
the contents of the collective unconscious symbolically.
Questioning the frontiers of the inner lifeInsofar as these assumptions are in fact at work in Jungian psychology, they suggest
a much shorter tether to Western, Christian roots than is commonly associated with
his thought. I hesitate to rush to the conclusion that slackening the ties to allow Jung’s
ideas more freedom to roam about Eastern and Buddhist ideas would produce a
better, more universally applicable psychology. At the same time, I am persuaded that
many of the criticisms that arise in stretching Jungian psychology to the outer limits
of its relevance for the non-Christian West are equally relevant for Christianity and
Buddhism, both of which know very well today what it is to be at the end of their
rope and going around in circles, unable to reach the masses of modern men and
women in search of spiritual meaning. What I would like to attempt in this concluding
section is to point to a number of areas in the contemporary perception of the inner
life where the influence of traditional Buddhism, traditional Christianity, and
traditional Jungian psychology have been muted, but which offer the grounds for the
sort of three-way heuristic dialogue suggested above.
With Jung’s volumes scattered around me, and armed with the ordinary tools of
logic and whatever common sense I have, I feel a certain sureness of foot tracing
arguments to their sources and dodging conclusions that overreach their premises.
When it comes to refreshing my view of the original experiences and events that this
intellectual apparatus is supposed to have obscured, however, I find myself wobbling
uncomfortably in the extreme. Add to this the fact that the context of these remarks
is the Buddhist-Christian dialogue and I flush at the biases of my Western, Christian
upbringing. In spite of myself, I will try to approach the heart of my thesis with as
much objectivity as I can.
Higher consciousness, higher realityFor all the ambiguity of usage and the tacit assumptions that entangle the terms, the
question of a true Self different from the everyday ego continues to provide an
important meeting point in the dialogue between psychology and religion East and
JUNG, CHRISTIANITY, AND BUDDHISM 53