The Himalayan ice-roof of the world has produced many of the great sages of the East. Numbered among them are the Indian Rishis of the Upanishads, the lama-savants of Tibet, and even Gautama Buddha, in nearby Nepal. By a curious symmetry, the snowy peaks of the Swiss Alps were the setting for the life of arguably the West’s most enlightened man of the 20th Century ~ a claim, it has to be said, much disputed recently by some in the psychotherapy establishment.

Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961) is often described as a psychiatrist and physician. In fact his work matured into an all-embracing vision of human life and its relations with the Absolute. His phenomenal intuition constantly came up against the numinous in everyday affairs and, being the man he was, he courageously based his post-Freudian work on the god in Man and the man in God. Born of Swiss Protestant stock, he became a “True Man of the Way” and a bridge between Western and Eastern psychologies that will surely prove seminal for the future.

Jung’s nearest counterpart in the East in the 20th Century is perhaps Dr. D.T. Suzuki (1870-1966), who introduced Zen to the West and who was often accused by his Japanese countrymen of over-stressing the intellect in a distinctly Western way. The truth, of course, is that both these men were too big to be contained within cultural norms.

In his long and fruitful life, Jung trod a careful path between the crusty scientific establishment of his day and the more adventurous thinkers on the fringes of Eastern mysticism and religion. He went to enormous lengths to avoid being classed as a Theosophist, a group he regarded as having swung irremediably towards psychological extremism. His published works are always models of empirical analysis, drawing living structures from a mass of precise medical observations. And yet he is never statistically arid like many scientists today. There is a life in his work that can only be described as religious, in the best sense of the word. His main “problem” was that the inevitable conclusions arising from these tireless investigations applied just as much to so-called normal people as to his pathologically disturbed patients.

The basis of Jung’s work was the process he called individuation, a naturally occurring progression in everyone, leading to psychological integration. Individuation, as expounded by Jung, is clearly related to Buddhist Enlightenment, in that though his ostensible concern was with empirical psychology, Jung went beyond Freud’s shallow personal subconscious (a repository of repressed mental contents), to what he called the “collective unconscious”, which took in the whole of the psyche, a term he used in the same sense as Buddhists use “Buddha-mind”.

Jung believed that nothing in the cosmos is incapable of psychological inclusion given the necessary insight and balanced vision. Thus he sometimes seemed to scorn the notion of the metaphysical with its transcendental exclusivity, a notable characteristic of many in the psychotherapy movement of his day.

The balance then between what is psychological and what is metaphysical is dangerously subject to all the vagaries of definition, making comparisons between viewpoints all the more perilous. Suzuki, for example, has this to say on the matter: “The idea is to express the unconscious working of the mind, but this unconscious is not to be interpreted psychologically, but on the spiritual plane where all ‘traces’ of discursive or analytical understanding vanish.”

Compare this with Jung’s: “One cannot grasp anything metaphysically, but it can be done psychologically. Therefore I strip things of their metaphysical wrappings in order to make them objects of psychology … if finally there should still be an ineffable metaphysical element, it would have the best opportunity of revealing itself.”

How would it reveal itself? Is the viewpoint arising from the non-working of the senses (which includes “thinking” in Buddhism) in the state called “Nirvana” to be called psychological?

The difference here is no-difference. Suzuki uses “psychological” to describe objects of rational thinking ~ all else, by implication, is metaphysical. Jung, however, takes a Western approach and calls anything capable of being experienced, psychological. Of course, anything which cannot be experienced is of no concern to man, since he could not possibly ever know of its existence. This is not the case with the Buddhist “unborn mind” which is clearly experienced from moment to moment by those attuned to it.

Jung uses “psyche” to embrace all experience, normal and trancendental. Suzuki draws a line at the limits of the intellect, thus creating an enormous “spiritual” domain. Here the divisive nature of words manufactures an East/West chasm that does not really exist. Both are constantly aware of the non-dual totality of things ~ its “suchness”.

Part 4 looks at Andrew Cohen, a contemporary American teacher.