The symbolic history of the Christ’s life shows, as the essential teleological tendency, the crucifixion, viz. the union of Christ with the symbol of the tree.
It is no longer a matter of an impossible reconciliation of Good and Evil, but of man with his vegetative ( == unconscious) life.
In the case of the Christian symbol the tree however is dead and man upon the Cross is going to die, i.e., the solution of the problem takes place after death.
That is so as far as Christian truth goes.
But it is possible that the Christian symbolism expresses man’s mental condition in the aeon of Pisces, as the ram and the bull gods do for the ages of Aries and Taurus.
In this case the post-mortal solution would be symbolic of an entirely new psychological status, viz. that of Aquarius, which is certainly a oneness, presumably that of the Anthropos, the realization of Christ’s allusion: “Dii estis.”
This is a formidable secret and difficult to understand, because it means that man will be essentially God and God man.
The signs pointing in this direction consist in the fact that the cosmic power of self-destruction is given into the hands of man and that man inherits the dual nature of the Father.
He will [ mis ]understand it and he will be tempted to ruin the universal life of the earth by radioactivity. Materialism and atheism, the negation of God, are indirect means to attain this goal.
Through the negation of God one becomes deified, i.e., god-almighty-like, and then one knows what is good for mankind.
That is how destruction begins.
The intellectual schoolmasters in the Kremlin are a classic example.
The danger of following the same path is very great indeed. It begins with the lie, i.e., the projection of the shadow.
There is need of people knowing about their shadow, because there must be somebody who does not project.
They ought to be in a visible position where they would be expected to project and unexpectedly they do not project!
They can thus set a visible example which would not be seen if they were invisible. ~
Carl Jung, Letters Vol. II, Page 167-168