Comments on C.G. Jung 5-1

[Dear Friends,
This fifth  posting that deals with the question of evil will be split into several parts. The issue is fundamental and the replies of Jung are also lengthy. I have also brought in some Dravidian Philosophical texts to elucidate the problem further. Readers are warned that a single reading will not be sufficient. You may have to read over and over again to understand the issues being discussed. I have omitted the original text in Tamil for saving space.

Question 5:  If my reading of your views correct, I should judge that you think evil to be a far more active force than traditional theological views have allowed for. You appear unable to interpret the condition of the world today unless this is so.  Am I correct in this ? If so, is it really necessary to expect to find the dark in the Deity? And if you believe that Satan completes the quarternity does this not mean that the Diey would be amoral?
 Victor White in his "God and the Unconscious" writes at the end of his footnote on page 76:" On the other hand , we are unable to find any intelligible, let alone desirable, meaning in such fundamental Jungian conception as the 'assimilation of the shadow' if they are not to be understood as the supplying of some absent good(e.g., consciousness) to what is essentially valuable and of itself good.' "

Jung:   I am indeed convinced  that evil is as positive a factor as good. Quite apart from everyday experience it would be extremely illogical to assume that one can state a quality without its opposite. If something is god, then there must needs be something that is evil or bad. The statement that something is good would not be  f one could not discriminate it from something else. Even if one says that something exists, such a statement is only possible alongside the other statement that something does not exists. Thus when the Church doctrine declares the evil is not or is a mere shadow, then the good is equally illusory, as its statement make no sense……….. The identification of good with OUSIA is a fallacy, because a man who is thoroughly evil does not disappear at all when he has lost his last good. But even if he has 1 per cent of his good, his body and soul and his whole existence are still thoroughly   good ; for, according to the doctrine, evil is simply identical with non-existence. This is such a horrible syllogism that there must be a very strong motive for its construction. The reason is obvious: it is a desperate attempt to save the Christian Faith from dualism. According to this theory [of the PRIVATIO BONI ] even the devil, the incarnate evil, must be good, because he exists, but inasmuch as he is thoroughly bad, he does not exist.  This is a clear attempt to annihilate dualism in flagrant contradiction to the dogma that the devil is eternal and damnation a very real thing…………
…. Certainly the God of Old Testament is good and evil. He is Father or Creator of Satan as well as of Christ.  Certainly if God the Father were nothing else than a loving Father, Christ's cruel sacrificial death would be thoroughly superfluous.

Loga:   Here it is clear that while Jung is right in saying that EVIL is real and not simply the deprivation or absence of good, his view that God is the source of both good and evil is totally wrong. God cannot be both the creator of Christ and Satan. The Satan which is only a metaphorical statement of the workings of something that we are led to recognize  as evil HAS TO BE AN AUTONOMOUS REALITY always in battle with God.  This is what in Saivism is called aNu or aNavam  just as uncreated and eternal as God and the countless number of souls.  Saivism agrees with Jung that evil is real  but disagrees with him when he says that God is both good and evil.
 I shall reproduce here  a  part of IrupaIrupathu wherein these same questions are  raised  but answered somewhat differently. ( The whole text is available at the Dravidian Philosophy Campus)

                Chapter 1: Nihilism and the Way Out

  Now begins an interrogation of Meykandar of a profound kind in which Arunandi takes to task
  Meykandar's central notion 'an-n-iyaminmai' or absence of  Otherness as the limiting condition of
  Being-in the-World of the anmas that he outlined in his magnificent Civajnana
  BOtham(henceforth C.B) and which  is said to have been bestowed by BEING itself and no other.
  This is also the notion of ParaMukti, the absolute liberation that provides the meaning for
  Existence, that for which existence is.  The interrogation and the dialectics brings out the
  impossibility of making sense of this notion of Paramukti within absolute hetereology that always
  maintains an alienness, an Other. Having brought out  the numerous impasses and hence nihilism
  of a kind as the only possibility, he makes it come out from the mouth of Meykandar the solutions
  to these dillemmas that hark back to the words of Appar and Thirunjaanasambanthar.

   kaNNakan nyaalaththuk kathiravan thaanena
   veNNaith thOnRiya meykaNta thEva!
   kaaraa kirukak kali aazvEnai n-in
   pEra inpaththu iruththiya peruma!
   vinaval aanaathutaiyEn  enathuLam
   n-Ingkaa n-ilaimai Ungkum uLaiyaal
   aRivinmai malam piRivinmai enin
   oraalinai uNarththum viraay n-inRanaiyEl
   thippiyam an-thO poyppakai aakaay

   Oh Meydanda Theva, who hast come down like the brilliant sun that dispels the
  DARKNESS of the wide world, and residing in VeNNai  Nallur, has established me
  in everlasting bliss by destroying my inclinations towards the Dark, I am desirous of
  posing some  (fundamental metaphysical) questions (in the light of what you have
  already said)
   If Thou as the BEING, has been all along with me never departing at all,
  standing as the SAME, then how is that I am infected with DARKNESS OF
   If it is said, it is so because the MALAM remains non-alienated and separated , it
  would mean that Thou standeth aloof and apart. But if this is denied and is said that
  BEING as such remains WITH all nonalienly, then not only it is incredible but also
  that Thou art NOT the foe of the false and illusory.


   chuththan amalan chOthi n-aayakan
   muththan paramparan enumpeyar mutiyaa
   And if so, then such descriptions of Thee as the Absolutely Pure, the Supremely
  Faultless, the Totally Illuminant, the Eternally Liberated, the Absolutely
  Transhistorical will be inapplicable.


   vERu n-inRuNarththin viyaapaka minRaayp
   pERum inRaakum emakku em peruma!

   Now in order to avoid such difficulties, if it is said that Thou standeth as an Other
  and instructs the creatures, then that would mean that Thou art not universally
  pervasive and immanent. And furthermore it would also mean Being-absolutely-one-
  with- Thee   and  hence the SAME as Thee will be impossible for me.

   irun-ilan- thIn-Ir iyamaanan kaalenum
   perun-ilaith thaaNtavam perumaaRku ilathaakalin
   vERO utanO viLampal vENtum
   chIRi yaruLal chiRumai yutaiththaal

   And furthermore as a Reality totally transcendent and above,
  Being-one-with-the-Physical- World of Fire, Air, Water, Earth and Space  and
  agitating them as a whole  (to instruct me) does not anymore belong to Thee. So
  explain to me whether Thou art one-with-me or not without loosing patience that is

   aRiyaathu kURinai apakkuva pakkuvak
   kuRi paarththu aruLinam kurumuthalaay enin
   apakkuvam aruLinum aRiyEn; mikaththakum
   pakkuvam vENtiR payanilai n-innaal

   Now if Thou repliest that I have posed these questions out of ignorance and that
  the world process is pedagogical in nature in which through the intermediaries of  a
  GURU, I in fact instruct each according to his own cognitive maturity or
  developmental attainment, we are not free of problems. For I am absolutely certain
  that even instructed, if I am not sufficiently matured for it, I will not be able to
  understand it at all. The instructions will be completely beyond my grasp. Now if a
  readiness for comprehension is required as a precondition, then  Thy instructions
  become redundant.

   pakkuvam athanaaR payan n-I varinE
   n-innaip paruvam n-ikazththaathu annO
   than oppaar ili enpathuvum thakumE
   Now if Being-one-with-Thee results as if spontaneously because of a state of
  readiness (and through direct revelation), then it is not something that happens in
  the course of the developmental progress of  an individual. And because of this
  uninvolvement, Thou  becometh the Supremely  Incomparable, the Wholly Other.

   mummalanj chatam aNu mUppu iLamaiyil n-I
   n-inmalan paruvam n-ikazththiyathu aarkkO?

   Now if Thou art not only the Wholly Other (but also involved in the pedagogical
  processes), and standeth as the Absolutely Pure, who or what is instructed by Thee?
  For the    three fold malas ( the ANavam, kanmam and maayeeyam) are insentient
  (and hence  incapable of learning); the finite self being a metaphysical reality does
  not age or remain youthful (i.e. does experience the historical processes of growth
  and decay). And since Thou art already the Absolutely Pure, it cannot also be as a
  way of realizing Thyself.

   uNarvezu n-Ikkaththai Othiyethu eninE
   iNaiyili aayinai enpathai aRiyEn
   yaanE n-Ikkinum thaanE n-Ingkinum
   kOnE vENtaa kURal vENtum.
   Now in order to overcome these difficulties if Thou asserts that these changes are
  brought about in the UNDERSTANDING and not in the nature of the Metaphysical
  Being of  the selves, then it becomes incomprehensible how thou art the Wholly
  Other,  and the  Incomparable. Whether it is I who removes the finitizing factors of
  the understanding or it leaves on its own accord, Thy presence seems to be
  unwanted. Please illuminate me  and  enlighten me with respect to these questions.

   kaaNpaar yaarkol kaattaakkaal enum
   maaNpurai uNarn-thilai manRa paaNtiyan
   kEtpak kiLakkum meynyaanaththin aRiyE

   (Meykandar replies:) You raise all these questions only because you are ignorant of
  what has already been articulated (by Appar wherein he says:) You cannot SEE
  anything unless SHOWN as such by BEING. Furthermore you are also ignorant of
  the reply given by Thirujnaanasambanthar when the Pandian king queried him viz.
  BEING  discloses to each according to his own merits in a manner befitting his
  hermeneutic capabilities and because of which the modes of disclosures are really
  infinite,  uncountable.