The Deity

[Simona 0]

Tashi Delek.

 

I read in the teaching of the Tantra "What is tried to be achived is an identification with the Deity, with an archetype. And this archetype is the one of a Buddha, of somebody having full Enlightenment." The definition of the archetype is "Archetype is an instinctive expectation we have of life, born out of the experience of our species over millennia." We are talking here about the expectations. (By the way, here comes a question about the limits of a human mind: Is the human mind able to expect only the things, which refer to the different archetypes? Is possible to expect something, which has not been experienced in some way before in the past?)

 

Human mind is made up from traces, which gather in the groups on the principle of similarity or/and contiguity. These two principles seem to be somehow universal (I am joining the people, who are similar to me and/or who`s karma make me contiguous to them.) Such groups are called the complexes in the Jung`s theory.

 

The human mind would tend to realize those expectations about the archetype. Usually, on the basis of the archetype of the Deity some personal complexes would be made by recognizing Deity`s behaviour similar to us or/and by experiencing the close contiguity of the Deity. And these two processes would be run through the one of the "sense doors". By the visualization, it would be by seeing a picture of the Deity.

 

By realizing the expectation, one would limit the archetype and therefor the realized picture of the Deity would be an artifical one. Is the point that one should maintain the expectation itself by observing what enter the "sense door" and undermine every attempt of realizing it i. e. by transforming it into personal complexes? In this way the picture would become more and more vivid and finally it would become a Pure Light? The genuine expectation is happening spontaneously, cause if I say myself now I will realize the expectation of the Deity, it would be an attempt to realize the expectation itself. Should one just maintain the "sense doors" open and that is the way the Deity would be experienced like it was before somwhere in the past?

 

Best regards,

 

Simona

[Gigu 0]

The definition of the archetype is "Archetype is an instinctive expectation we have of life, born out of the experience of our species over millennia." We are talking here about the expectations.

From where is this definition?

 

Thank you.

[Simona 0]

Tashi Delek.

 

I apologize. Definition is created by C. G. Jung (Stevens, On Jung.)

 

Best regards,

 

Simona

[Gigu 0]

I apologize. Definition is created by C. G. Jung (Stevens, On Jung.)

So, we might not try to explain a Buddhist concept on the basis of a Jung's definition...

 

Thank you.

[Simona 0]

Tashi Delek.

 

Yes, might not to. Yet, it is an interesting idea, I mean that one of Jung.

Could you write, please, what is a definition of the archetype from the Buddhist point of view?

 

 

Best regards,

 

Simona

[Simona 0]

Tashi Delek.

 

http://buddhism.kalachakranet.org/tantra_symbols.html

 

INTRODUCTION

[align=justify]For the untrained, especially the symbolism in tantra can be extremely confusing. However, it should be noted that in modern psychology, Freud and Jung have clarified many aspects of the sub-consciousness in terms of symbolism. In Buddhism, something like sub-consciousness is an impossibility by definition - an awareness without consciousness does not make sense, but there are certainly areas of our mind we are only barely aware of. In order to access these more hidden and subtle aspects of our mind, symbols can be very effective in mind transformation.

As Jean Shinoda Bolen writes in The Tao of psychology:

"Jung describes archetypes as 'patterns of instinctual behaviour'. ... One definition of archetypes that Jung uses refers to 'primordial images', or archetypal figures that become activated and then clothed with personally derived emotional coloration. This occurs when an emotional [or spiritual] situation develops that corresponds to a particular archetype. .. For example the 'Wise Old Man', the 'Divine Child', 'All-Giving Mother', 'Patriarchal Father', 'Temptress' or 'Trickster' - all are symbolic, recurring figures in dreams, literature and religions. When the archetypal level of the collective unconscious is touched in a situation, there is emotional intensity as well as a tendency for symbolic expression. Then the usual everyday level of experience becomes altered; there is more 'magic' in the air. One can become 'inspired' or be on a 'crusade'."

The very last word of this quote is important in the entire concept of tantra; it can be efficient in enhancing spiritual progress, but if used unskilful, it can lead to madness like personal 'crusades' and 'holy wars'. This presents another good reason for the traditional secrecy of tantric practice and reliance on a true spiritual master.

Another important aspect is the fact that the Buddha clearly explained that "meaningless ritual" should not be practised. So by definition, one could say that ritual in Buddhism must be filled with (symbolic) meaning.

Most of below symbols are taken from the Tibetan traditions, as they can be considered to have preserved the most complete set of tantric teachings.[/align]

 

The word "archetype" is a Greek word and the Jung looks like to be the only one, who ever defined that concept. It is a mere "western concept", though. It could be quite a mess, when it is used in the Buddhism, no?

 

Best regards,

 

Simona

[Wangmo 0]

Tashi Delek,

 

if referring to what Jung said, it may be good to quote Jung himself, or?

For example:

 

"Again and again I encounter the mistaken notion that an archetype is determined in regard to its content, in other words that it is a kind of unconscious idea (if such an expression be admissible). It is necessary to point out once more that archetypes are not determined as regards their content, but only as regards their form and then only to a very limited degree. A primordial image is determined as to its content only when it has become conscious and is therefore filled out with the material of conscious experience. Its form, however, as I have_ explained elsewhere, might perhaps be compared to the axial system of a crystal, which, as it were, preforms the crystalline structure in the mother liquid, although it has no material existence of its own. This first appears according to the specific way in which the ions and molecules aggregate. The archetype in itself is empty and purely formal, nothing but a facultas praeformandi, a possibility of representation which is given a priori. The representations themselves are not inherited, only the forms, and in that respect they correspond in every way to the instincts, which are also determined in form only. The existence of the instincts can no more be proved than the existence of the archetypes, so long as they do not manifest themselves concretely. With regard to the definiteness of the form, our comparison with the crystal is illuminating inasmuch as the axial system determines only the stereometric structure but not the concrete form of the individual crystal. This may be either large or small, and it may vary endlessly by reason of the different siu of its planes or by the growing together of two crystals. The only thing that remains constant is the axial system, or rather, the invariable geometric proportions underlying it. The same is true of the archetype. In principle, it can be named and has an invariable nucleus of meaning - but always only in principle, never as regards its concrete manifestation. In the same way, the specific appearance of the mother-image at any given time cannot be deduced from the mother archetype alone, but depends on innumerable other factors. "

From "Psychological Aspects of the Mother Archetype" CW 9 i, par. 155

[Simona 0]

Tashi Delek.

 

Wangmo, thank you for your help.

 

I have some problems to see the Deity as a Christian`s God, merciful, kind, compassionate (please, do not jump on me now, I was listening all my life about the God, but never believe in it, yet obviouslly being infected by it). And when I see the Buddhists Deities in forms of something like beings, I can not help myself to draw some parallel lines to the God. And all those sculptures of the Jesus and Maria in the churches. I guess I should make a shift, better said a cut, to see the Deity as a principle, without any atributes attached on it. Maybe it would be the best to see the Deity as the light. But, please it is not about the intelectual understanding. I do understand on the intelectual level. But, somewhere deep in me all those images...and the memories connected to them, when somebody died of the family, it was a Christian funeral, all those emotions. Now, I have a hard work to do, but good to be aware of the delusion in order to do something about it. It will be like the preliminary practice to change the God in to the Deity, on the most deep inside of myself.

 

Best regards,

 

Simona

[Shenpen.Rinpoche 0]

Tashi delek,

The word "archetype" is a Greek word and the Jung looks like to be the only one, who ever defined that concept. It is a mere "western concept", though. It could be quite a mess, when it is used in the Buddhism, no?

This is why, when using a word which can create confusion, it is important to give the definition we will use; and of course a definition from the same source/field of the topic/tradition we are talking about.

We have to use words from within our language which can be correlated to other words in an other language; but we have to be careful that the people we are talking to understand in which context we are using them…

 

It is like the word: "compassion". It is a word heavily loaded already in the West, from the Christian tradition. If we use this word as a synonym of "Bodhicitta", it is absolutely not correct, because the meaning is not the same. We have to explain very well what Bodhicitta is at first, saying that we will use compassion in the sense of Bodhicitta. Otherwise, it is confusing.

 

Also, when we wish to really enter such subject - as archetype - we have to be sure to find a reliable source. Not all sources on Internet, or even in books, are reliable. Here is one which is reliable: Berzin Archives (even though I think the author is displaying to public things which should not, according to the rules and vows of Tantra... Some information would be better behind a password, accessible only for those having received the requiered Initiation).

 

All the best, Gelong T. Shenphen

[Brane 0]

Tashi Delek.

 

I ask myself if somebody of us realy now such a well C. G. Jung-his life work, his thinking, books...totality or christyanity- whole, that could be able to given objective interpretation or judgement about them. I mean Simona, that you expose very deep and complex topics which demand a realy deppening knowledge that later not be done some generalizing or simplifay sentence, view. This sentences that I wrote are not jump or something like that on you, ok? Good, let go ahead:

 

"If we look from psihologicaly poin of wiev, religion is psihological phenomenon which is present here on a iracional way and also it is the fact our philosophy or anatomy. When this function is not present the human kind is like a individuum without balance because religion experience is expression for existence and function of unconsciousnes. It is not true that is enough racio and will. Indeed, on the contrary, we are permanent under influence forces which disturb and go along and crosswise through racio and will, this is mean that are strongest. Therefore happening that supreme intelligent (reasonable) people, and exactly those kind of people, suffering from disturbings in which they can not help themselves neither will neither intellect. Inside humen being is from ever something what he/she feel and experience strongest than is her/hisself alone and this call divine or demonic. God is this strongest inside him/her. This psihological definition of God of course have not nothing common with christian-dogmatic but it give us a description about something uneasiness in front of us. This is the most compose with our stories about "experience of God"."

C.G.Jung VON RELIGION UND CHRIESTENTUM, Letters II, 512.

 

Religion symbols do not come from the head but from somewhere else, maybe from the heart, in all cases from some deep psihological layer which have lack analogy with the consciousnes that always stay just on a surface. Therefore religious symbols have distinctive "notification character", this is mean that in principle are spontanious products unconsciousnes soul (mind) act. They are all and everything, but not considerate before that they are slowly grow throughout milleniums like stalk, like natural notification human being soul (mind). And nowadays we can observe how spontanously arise true religious symbols, how growe from our unconsciousnes like unusual kind of flowers but consciousnes stays beside them and wonder it and do not now exactly what to do with that birth. We do not need experienced some big troubles that confirm how this individual symbols at the capacity and form takes its source from the same unconsciousnes "spirit" (or what ever could be) like great humen being religion. In all cases, experience prove that religions are not at all capable invention, but arrive from natural life of unconsciousnes soul (mind) and in a certain way they adequate express it. With this themselves explain (interpret) own universal spread and own pure historrical influence on a men. Such a influence will be ununderstandable when religious symbols can not be at least psihologic natural truths.

C.G.Jung, VON RELIGION UND CHRISTENTUM, Main work 9,83.

[Simona 0]

Tashi Delek, Lama Shenphen Rinpoche.

 

Thank you very much for that link. {|

 

[align=justify]"The clear light continuum is not an equivalent for the collective unconscious. Although both mental faculties have features of which one is normally unaware, the clear light continuum is the subtlest level of the mental continuum and provides an individual with continuity from one lifetime to the next. The collective unconscious, on the other hand, explains the continuity of mythic patterns over successive generations. It manifests in each person, but only in humans, and does not pass on through a process of rebirth. Moreover, even as emanations of clear light continuums, Buddha-figures lack the ability to bring about results, such as granting wishes, by their own powers, from their own sides, independently of anything else. Buddhism argues that such abilities are impossible. Nevertheless, offering prayers to Tara may help to bring about effects, whether or not one recognizes Tara as an emanation of Buddha or as an emanation of one's own clear light continuum and representing its potentials." [/align]

 

Best regards,

 

Simona