Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00941)

--- In theosophy_talks_truth@y..., "netemara888" <netemara888@y...> 
wrote:

"The paradoxical Abraxas of the early poem thus prefigures "the self" 
which Jung discussed over the next four decades as a "a complexio 
oppositorum." Self-knowledge is achieved through the conscious 
assimilation of the contents of the unconscious, including its 
dark "shadow" side, towards a goal of "wholeness." Jung, therefore, 
was deeply interested in the Gnostic insistence on evil as an active 
principle as opposed to the incomplete Christian view of evil as the 
privatio boni, the absence of good. "The Gnostics," he writes with 
approval, "exhaustively discussed the problem of evil," and he quotes 
the famous question of Basilides, "Whence comes evil?


Hans Jonas presents a compelling argument, and the similarities 
between ancient Gnosticism and modern existentialism do seem at 
least "analogical." We should keep in mind, however, the surprising 
condemnation of Gnosticism made by Albert Camus. Gnosticism, he 
claims in "The Rebel" is conciliatory. It alters the course of 
metaphysical rebellion by developing the theory of a wicked, inferior 
god…."

"The Nag Hammadi Library" postscriptual writing by Robert Smith
**************

Comment: The above are two quotes which discuss the influence which 
gnosticism had upon Jung. Jung also wrote an entire book about "Evil" 
I can't find the title just now in my library but I did read it and 
it was probably a great influence on Scott Peck who wrote also on 
evil (a theme important to the field of psychology) Peck's book "The 
People of the Lie" is one of the best books on the subject. So I ask 
you why is that a philosopher who is as well read as Kaufmann claims 
him to be upset that a world-renowned psychologist (who broke away 
from Freud) would dare (Buber's claim) discuss religion, evil and 
gnosticism?

If evil is now considered something which cannot be divorced from 
understanding the mind of the mentally ill--why would a psychologist 
NOT understand it? I believe it must be understood by any 
psychologist worth his salt. This brings me to Blavatsky, who was not 
a contemporary of these two but who greatly influenced Jung 
obviously. That Blavatsky also wrote a great deal about evil, and 
many times she pointed the finger directly at Judaism. I ask myself 
would this have anything to do with Buber and his diatribe against 
Jung?

Then we have the added boon (see next post) of Buber imitating the 
Eastern religions and gurus who were his contemporaries hmmmmmmm....

Netemara
--- End forwarded message ---