Balance and Harmonized Thoughts

            Lately, I am reading Jean Shinoda Bolen's wonderful book, Tao of Psychology: Synchronicity and the Self. There are two reasons in particular why I find this book interesting. The first is that it explores a creative process of seeing everyday events symbolically as extensions of inner conflicts, a process that Jung describes as synchronicity. Another reason I find Shinoda Bolen's book interesting is that it describes a kind of integrated self: a self that synthesizes opposites by beholding tensions between polarities and working between these polarities, rather than emphasizing one over the other. Some of what Shinoda Bolen writes about in particular parallels the kinds of ideas I also read in Buddhism. For example, she notes, regarding a patient of hers who was drawn into a pattern of destructive perceptions of others:

If this man could accept the possibility that the world he experiences is a mirror and that what he sees and condemns is a reflection of what must change in himself, then change would be possible. For most people, altering the pattern of the way things are in the outer world is impossible, while changing what one sees as a problem in one’s own psyche, although difficult, can be done. (p.60)

 Like Buddhist teachings, Jungian writings emphasize how the external world people see is a projection of an inner space, particularly in cases where people are attached to emotional situations or judgments. I think that the Jungian position is different from Buddhism in many ways. While Buddhism traces the source of all thoughts to mind, I think the Jungian position tries to label the kinds of universal patterns (or archetypes) that are projected onto the sense of self and others. Shinoda Bolen notes, “Recognizing the pattern is the beginning of wisdom, because it allows one to observe instead of being drawn, willy-nilly, toward the emotionally charged person.” (p.58). This attitude of labeling the types of encounters we experience is one way of deflating their emotional power. Rather than taking an emotion as a personal issue or an issue relating to someone else, this realm of archetypes becomes a more impersonal space to which one can shift emotional energies. And it also provides a temporary explanation of sorts, as to why certain situations feel heightened.

            One thing I find potentially problematic about the Jungian approach is that it might tempt people to believe that symbols and archetypes have a separate awareness from mind, or are these fixed entities that have the same universal meaning for everyone. I truly believe that archetypes are powerful only because the mind invests them with a temporary power. What a person does with these projections is still to be figured into the course of a spiritual practice. The second potentially problematic area is that it might sidetrack people away from the relationships one has in this present space. Over-emphasizing the symbolic, ‘projected’ elements of an experience has a way of diverting attention away from the uniqueness of a person and her or his experiences and positionality. It is as though, in studying symbolic archetypes, the archetype itself takes precedence over the person in that moment. In fact, these projections people make should perhaps only be identified for the purpose of letting go of their power, and not taking those thoughts to have a separate awareness. Trying to apply this understanding to the unfolding dynamics between people might start to become cumbersome. It is like having a vast toolkit of patterns to work with and trying to find the one that fits the situation of the moment. Finally, I don’t believe that the archetypes that Jung identified in his work can truly exhaust the kinds of experiences a person has that are valuable and useful. They seem to be more general guidelines or patterns that people can keep in mind when they respond powerfully to a situation. But they often under-explain what is really happening in that moment, including the particularities of conditions that make the current moment what it is.

            Nonetheless, the area I find most beneficial is the notion of harmonizing opposites, which seems to have drawn from study of Taoism. Shinoda Bolen beautifully interweaves Taoist philosophy with concepts from Jungian psychology, showing how they intermingle. What I appreciate about this approach is that there is always an underlying opposite to any assertion one can make about an experience. Even if I say that the weather is terrible today and I shouldn’t go out, what I say about it is contending with other perspectives that suggest that I should endure the weather to do something. The conflict arises when that one thought tries to take over all the other thoughts. In fact, all these thoughts arise from the same source, and often even co-arise in the same time-frame. But when I start to insist on one thought being the ‘correct view’, I am giving so much power to one thought over others. I think the emphasis in the Jungian view is to know that there are different forces operating, just as in Buddhism, we talk about the current thought not related to the previous. When I know that none of these thoughts or forces are the ‘real’ me and are simply arising thoughts, I can then start to relax awareness and not take these thoughts as my real self. Perhaps this is one possible bridge between the Jungian/Taoist approach and some of the Buddhist approaches.

Shinoda Bolen, Jean, (1979), The Tao of Psychology: Synchronicity and the Self. San Francisco. Harper.