INTRODUCTION
Part 2. Traditional Psychology
Tradition.
For the solution of his problems man should turn to his spiritual heritage, contained in the traditions of the ancients and to some extent also in their offshoots which have subsisted till the present day. Certain records in stone and paper have been preserved or handed down from past generations.
Humanity has a treasure-house with many rooms, full of monuments, images and scriptures, containing teachings in the language of symbols, and further rituals, ceremonies and customs, and orally transmitted traditions, to draw upon.
For the meaning of what he finds he should search in another treasure-house, not found in the outer world, but in his own soul. For the meaning of even the fundamentals of symbolism has been lost to the conscious mind. To discover it he must turn within and call to aid some of the higher psychical functions for letting it arise out of the unconscious. Though the sacred traditions of the ancients were in their original form entirely rational (even if more than that), the rational mind of modern students has been unable to find its way through them. This is only natural, for the old traditions did not aim at presenting a picture of a rational universe or a rational man. It will be shown that they were forms of a psychological science which dealt with the interrelation and correlation of all the psychological functions and the creative power from which these spring: consciousness.
The reason why the rational mind has not succeeded in finding the key to the traditions of old is that it always searches for a one-word-one-meaning interpretation — as is correct for a modern textbook of an exact science. But such an interpretation serve no purpose with symbols, for reasons which will be apparent later. Furthermore, the key is symbolical and to be found and successfully applied only by the functions which are higher than the rational, in co-operation with the rational and emotional functions.
The modern mind always searches for rational meaning. This is correct with regard to purely rational matters. But psychology deals with a field of life in which the rational mind is only one of the active factors. Therefore the teachings of traditional psychology should be approached by all the psychical functions: perception, feeling, rational thought, intuition, and faith. Psychological problems arise from disharmony and discord between the various psychological functions. Therefore their solution should be attempted by them all, and not merely by the rational function.
The function of thought considers itself to be so objective that it deems the character of the thinker to be of no importance with regard to its efficiency. It is true that the exercise of the function of thought, as distinct from the direction and objects of its preoccupation, is not much influenced by character. Blackguards can have very efficient minds. But we do not speak of clever saints, and it is clear that in a saint the function of thought is well controlled by other functions. The traditional teachings tell us (as we shall see later) that these higher functions only begin to play a part in life after a person’s character has become sufficiently purified. It is also this reason that the search for the meaning of ancient traditions has so far not yielded any fruit.
In the present very gloomy period of time various technical circumstances have made it possible, for the first time on a big scale since history (as reckoned by the people of this age) began, to place the traditions of all nations and culture, ancient and modern, religious and otherwise, side by side. If this modern age had not had a few saving features, humanity could never have lived through it at all.
When the study of comparative religion, mythology and culture ceases to be an exclusive concern of the rational mind and a pastime for sectarians, and is followed on a truly sincere and unbiased basis, and not pursued in an abstract way, but continually referred to the psychological and sociological actualities of life — first of all those of the students themselves — it is hardly possible to foresee the vastness of its consequences for the future of humanity. For it will be a study of traditional psychology.
Dreams.
Psychologists have recognized the intimate relationship between the symbolic material of the dreams of sleep and that of the traditions of olden times. How intimate this relationship is will be realized by anyone who begins to study this subject at the hand of the meaning of the traditional material that is dealt with in this book. It lies beyond the scope of this work to adduce evidence for it, which can easily be collected by individual researchers from their own dreams and those of others. Modern man has lost the faculty and the key to enter into the meaning of myths, and he has only just begun again to interpret dreams. Myths have dropped out of this life, leaving him in a state of spiritual poverty, and his dreams are only very rarely “great dreams”, mostly consisting, as they do, of images of a superficial nature, relating to the superficial atmosphere of modern life.
Psychological etymology.
The science of etymology is of very great value in the search for the meaning of symbols. But apart from purely philological factors, there are certain pseudo-etymological factors of great value to psychology, that should also receive attention. Between (pure) etymology and what is called “popular etymology” is a great field which — for lack of a better name — may be termed “psychological etymology”. This filed has so far hardly received recognition, since etymologists refuse, from their point of view rightly, to consider anything which is regarded by them as “popular etymology”.
As an example of “psychological etymology” one may cite the association between the words “bliss” and “blessing”, which are not related in their origin. The first originally meant joy and is related to “blithe”, and the second indicated a wound and is related to “blood”. Since both were connected with religious sacrifices, an association was formed in the mind. Such a connection is based on sound-similarity and association of origin, end, aim, meaning, function, or cause-and-effect.
Another example is provided by the words “good” and “God”. At first words may be merely connected together in some symbolic association or other. To give an example. Somewhere the words “symbol” and “sample” were spontaneously joined together, in spite the fact that they are not etymologically related at all. This is the first stage. When the association is repeated and taken over by others, it is on the way, if it is important enough, to become a tradition. The field of life to which they apply and the subtlety and usefulness of such a marriage between words will decide whether it will produce a sample of popular etymology or a symbol of psychological etymology. The history of the great traditions is full of examples of the process, which has been promoted by the influence of syncretism. Some associations, in which there is no element of blood relationship, have become more intimate through marriage than many that arise only from blood relationship.
Wrong etymological conclusions of past generations have similarly become traditions. They should be accepted as forms of “psychological etymology” and part and parcel of the psychological treasure-trove of man. It must also be remarked that it is sometimes difficult to say where etymological conclusions go wrong, for, as will be pointed out later, all roots ultimately lead to one root of roots.
The contrast between the outlook of traditional psychology and the modern outlook.
The modern outlook is concerned with “definite” things, that is, “finite”, delimited things. It likes “definitions” or devices to delimit things. However valuable for rationalistic and materialistic purposes, these are delimitations which the spiritual man revolts against, if they are employed outside their proper domain for the purpose of imprisoning truth (as a definition of God) and expressions of life. The modern outlook is also much concerned with abstractions and generalizations.
The working material of traditional psychology consists of symbols. These are in contrast with the definitions or one-word-one-meaning terms that are used in the place of definitions. Symbols represent psychological situation in connection with particular stages in a time-cycle. It is evident, therefore, that there is nothing vague and indeterminate about them.
Their meaning should be deduced from their context, as is the case with words in a sentence. They may, and should, be rationally clarified and explained, so long as it is realized that this process deals with only one aspect of their nature. The other aspects are clarified at the hand of supplementing and analogous symbols.
The modern outlook is bound up with self-realization in material comfort and emotional pleasure. The reality it is concerned with is that of “this world”. The outlook of traditional science is bound up with the striving for self-knowledge and the realization of the Self or God, bringing the comfort of a peaceful mind and the pleasure of ecstatic rapture. The reality it is interested in is absolute Reality and its highest aim is to realize. That in the world, thereby unifying the great opposites and harmonizing life.
The modern outlook is much concerned with the situation on “the morrow”, whereas the traditional outlook stresses the value of the moment itself. In this the traditional outlook is more realistic.
The modern outlook stresses the ideal of human equality; the traditional outlook is aware of the fact of spiritual and moral inequality in the world. Here, again, the outlook of tradition is the more realistic.
The modern tendency is to equalize life in the world; the traditional outlook is that man is at heart (respectively, was and will be) the likeness of God.
In its better aspects the modern outlook demands moral reconstruction. The traditional outlook stresses the need of spiritual renascence. There are many people of great moral integrity who are spiritually bored, starving and unhappy. The spiritual functions are suppressed and repressed to a greater extent than one would consider possible, and — as quite a few people have realized — this fact is at the root of a great many of the problems of our age, if not of all.
In the modern outlook “a myth” is synonymous with the “unintelligible” or even the “nonexistent”. The expression “a mere myth” is intended to denote what is baseless and imaginary. In traditional psychology a myth is a story containing at one and the same time the highest and the most practical wisdom.
The outlook of science and the sacred psychological traditions of old are opposed to each other as form to life. In practice they can never be entirely distinct, for form and life are actually related. Tradition shows us that the worlds of the Titans and the Gods are also related.
Science starts from uncertainties and doubts and works with speculations and working hypotheses. It begins, as it were, at the bottom. It starts from an ever changing world. The sacred psychological traditions of old, on the other hand, started from the top, from an experienced Reality, from Being and a changeless Certainty. It reflects Truth and teaches in terms of “thus it is”. This science can never do. For it is based upon the relative.
Modern man has come to a great extent to identify Consciousness and thought, the Logos and logic, Pure Reason and common sense. His methods of thought have led to label-thinking. His mind is like a box full of labels, while the mind of a man open to the sacred traditions of old is like a sky with moving clouds.
Sacred tradition contains, in so far it deals with realms beyond reason, and beyond the reach of reason, much that is unreasoned, and perhaps unreasonable. But it is not irrational. If rationalism is to be condemned, this applies only to rationalism-for-rationalism’s sake and rationalism-for-materialism’s sake. The rational function cannot be condemned and should not be restrained if it works harmoniously with the other functions.
Modern thought is analytical, ever productive of new cupboards full of new labels. This leads by more and more specialization to the collective schizophrenia of modern humanity, with the separation of the psyche in water-tight compartments. The outlook of traditional psychology is synthetic, it makes for unity and harmony in the soul and between men. The modern mind seeks differences, while the mind open to tradition seeks what unites.
The modern outlook is one of identification with the physical body, the emotions and the faculty of thought, while the outlook of traditional psychology is associated with theocracy, that is, the practice leading to the union of the soul with God or Being, and the realization of its true identity.
In theological and philosophical matters the modern man is sectarian and intolerant and holds that he has a special revelation or truth all of his own. The outlook of sacred psychology is tolerant and spiritually syncretic. It strives for the rediscovery of parallelism between the symbolic teachings belonging to different tradition, for the purpose of obtaining more knowledge, greater inspiration and a clearer insight. Syncretism should not be superficial and artificial (in which sense some have interpreted and hence condemned it) but be based on the original living relationship between traditions.
From the point of view of traditional psychology, modern forms of theology are literalistic and pseudo-rationalistic interpretations of sacred tradition. Traditional psychology is not traditionalism, in the sense of the striving for the preservation of traditional forms which, having lost their meaning represent a degeneration of older and purer teachings. It aims at truth and clarification and discards superstition wherever it is found.
Philosophy came into existence a few centuries before the Christian era and became the basis of modern philosophy. But early philosophy was linked with the world of symbols and myth — as Eastern philosophy still is to a very great extent. It is significant that Jesus did not bring a new philosophy. He spoke in symbols and his life has been recorded in the form of a myth. The Christian Mystery represented the resurrection and fulfillment of older Mysteries. Philosophy, divorced from the teachings of traditional psychology, is a product of times of progressive “schizophrenia” and decay. The perennial philosophy is contained in the teachings of traditional psychology and theology.
Most of the terms of Eastern schools of philosophy cannot be defined, like the terms of Western philosophy. They are symbolical and do not indicated particular concepts. Words such as ātmā, Buddhi, Dharma, Karma, etc., have meaning according to the context in which and the occasion and the time at which they are used or occur. Ātmā, for instance, may mean many things ranging from the Supreme Self via the soul (whatever it means) to the body, the lowest form of the “self”. Buddhi is used in an number of different meanings: intuition, discrimination between the One and the multiple, discrimination between the Real and the unreal, discrimination between Spirit and form, discrimination between “the letter of the Law” and its meaning, perception of symbolic meaning, secondary direct perception of truth (the primary being ātman by ātman), etc. A glossary of terms or a dictionary is not of much use for understanding the meaning of a term in a particular context. What is needed before all else is a steady focussing in the function of Buddhi, after that faculty has been progressively developed. The traditional aid in understanding is given by myths in which the function of Buddhi or spiritual discrimination is shown in interplay with the other psychical functions, in tackling the problems of life.
The spirit and the meaning of teachings of traditional psychology cannot be obtained by perception (of their letter), feeling, and logic, though all these functions are of assistance. “The key is not transmitted with scriptures, but infused in the spirit by means of the spirit” (Agrippa, Epist. III; 56).
Modern teachings appeal only to the faculty of thought; traditional teachings make an appeal to all the inner functions. Symbols should be interpreted rationally only in so far as the rational enters in as a subsidiary function along with the other functions. The main function for dealing with them and for appraising them is the intuition, the faculty of spiritual understanding which in Hinduism is called the Buddhi. According to the teachings, Buddhi involves the lower functions harmoniously, if it is “pure”. In that case it is also linked to the functions beyond it. The three lower functions are the perception and apprehension of the tangible aspect of a symbol, the emotional function, and the rational function.
If Buddhi is not “pure”, one or other of the lower functions predominates. When the coordination of the lower functions has been achieved in life, and Buddhi “purified”, life becomes “like an open book”, insight is won, and the highest peace, happiness and rapture obtained.
The symbols of traditional psychology and many of the terms of Oriental philosophy are hints and cannot be equated with the terms of Western philosophy. Eastern and Western philosophy, traditional psychology and the modern outlook, cannot meet, unless the modern thinker finds his way back to the wisdom which is hidden in his unconscious and contains the wide world of ancient, but perennial, traditions.
The modern mind has a high opinion of itself and a poor opinion of the ancients. It will become evident by and by that the ancients were vastly more cultured and intellectual than is now held.
Rationalism is unrealistic, for rational man does not know anything, whatever it be, for certain — as also the leading scientists of the present time have now realized. The man of great faith and insight into the quintessence of things, the mystic, is a realistic, for he knows that GOD, who is the substratum of all, IS, whereas everything else is perpetually changing. Mystics and seers in all ages have declared that GOD stands out as Reality. This realization has given many the faith and the power to face persecution, martyrdom and death. Traditional psychology holds that God is both Reality and the Self. The average man holds that reality and his self are inherent in his physical body. In him — according to the traditional point of view — Reality and the Self have been concealed within the self-created structure of psychical delusion. The human mind veils itself, closes itself, delimits itself, binds itself, and, after having done so, either sits in self-glory on its self-made throne, lighted by artificial lamps which sooner or later fail, or plucks the fruits of its self-caused exile, blaming God or chance for the imperfections, troubles, sufferings and catastrophes of life, for which nothing but its own attitude and action should be blamed.
The modern mind is interested in personal theories and philosophies of life. These last a few decennia or for the most a few hundred years. The Tradition is universal and everlasting. Its material has been the age-long guide to humanity in the solution of its problems and the attainment of happiness. It is not the private possession of anyone, but belongs to all. From the point of view of traditional psychology the problems of modern man spring from the fact that he has ignored the ancient science of his forefathers, dealing with the path, at one end of which is psychical chaos, emptiness and darkness, and at the other peace and the rapture of a mind that sees the unity of the highest and the most ordinary things in life, knows the grace connected with a pure consciousness, and has the fixity of purpose resulting from the realization of That which IS.
The meaning of the Tradition is revealed ever again to the soul for its liberation from bondage due to ignorance of its true nature, and for salvation from its pains and sorrows. Modern life and science, if not psychically adjusted and made subservient to the Tradition, produce bondage and its painful problems.
A few hints always manage to penetrate to the consciousness of people, however rationalistically, sentimentally or materialistically colored it is ⎼ for in the unconscious is a great store of ancient wisdom. Truths are continually conveyed in a symbolic form to their perception. But there are powers in the psyche that see to it that the hints are not understood. For understanding would destroy these factors ⎼ and they do not want annihilation. From self-protection they will ignore symbolic hints, or else suppress them with “common sense” or ridicule.
The modern outlook is specialist and partial. Traditional psychology aims at “healthiness”, “wholesomeness”, “haleness” and “holiness” — all etymologically related terms, implying harmony between all the psychological functions and balance between the introvert and extrovert tendencies.
When insight in traditional psychology is gained then the universal realization and proclamation of the traditional methods are seen to be of the greatest world importance. These methods of symbolism are clearly more practical (with reference to physical functions and life in the world), satisfying (applying to the emotional function), scientific (applying to the rational function), inspiring and wise (with reference to the spiritual and intuitive functions), and wholesome and profound (applying to the aim and quintessence of life) — than the modern ways of teaching in the form of ethics or moral science (which is philosophy and does not make anyone better), philosophy, dogmatic theology and rationalistic psychology.
