16 March 1932 Visions Seminar Lecture IX
16 March 1932 Visions Seminar Lecture IX
We are in the middle of the vision about the red jewel; you remember we stopped where the stars were melted by the fire into which they fell. Our patient then passed through the fire and emerged in a garden within.
This is like the ring of fire in the Eastern mandala, fire having always the quality of concupiscentia or passion.
But she must pass through the fire in order to become purified.
One has a great fear of passion because of its burning fiery quality, one is afraid of the possibility of destruction, and therefore one avoids such situations.
But when the ordeal by fire comes, she walks through it and enters the garden; inside the flaming circle is a beautiful and quiet place where plants grow.
The fire of passion belongs to the animal nature, it has a mutable quality.
Therefore one always uses fire as a metaphorical term to characterize something with spirit.
One speaks of a fiery horse for instance, or a fiery temperament which easily flares up like a flame; or we say that a thing quickly done is done like lightning, which is also a sort of fire; anything with the quality of animal intensity, or of quickness, impulsiveness, is expressed metaphorically by fire.
So this fire is the essence that animates animal nature, and passing through the fire is the symbol of overcoming it; one doesn’t put the fire out because it cannot be put out, but one can stand the ordeal.
Therefore in certain Hindu secret societies it is a particular art to walk on glowing coals without getting
burned, a concrete application of this particular symbolism.
This woman does not suppress the fire, it still exists, but rather she forces her nature to adapt to the nature of fire so that she can endure it.
Then a different principle lives in the garden; instead of the mutable nature of the fire, there is the quiet growth of the plant, the spiritual principle in contrast to the fiery principle of animal nature.
The animal can leap as flames leap, it can change its position and move from one object to another, but a plant is rooted to the spot where it grows.
Our patient is now walking along a path in the garden, and she comes to a pool. In a mandala, there is always another circle inside the garden symbolizing the center.
This receives many different interpretations, varying according to the conditions.
Here it is the pool, which symbolizes the maternal side of the unconscious, it is the mother, a symbol of rebirth-like the baptismal font, or the washing-house in the center of the mosque, which is the place of rebirth.
Now up to this moment everything is according to the rules and one might expect a very satisfactory
situation to ensue.
She has passed through the fire, she has entered the garden, and she is now coming to the central pool, which seems like a most ideal and law-abiding procedure.
What would you assume might happen there?
Dr. Reichstein: She might enter the water to be reborn.
Dr. Jung: That she might descend to the mother to be reborn is the most natural expectation.
Or it might be a variation of this particular symbolism.
Mr. Allemann: She might drink the water.
Dr. Jung: Yes, or there are often substitute rites; instead of bathing in the water, one can drink the water, or sprinkle it upon oneself.
Mr. Allemann: Or the animus may go into the water.
Dr. Jung: Yes, that sort of thing has already occurred, the animus once fell into the chasm and disappeared, you remember, and he plunged into the water several other times, showing what she had to do.
But the substitution may go further,she can substitute the pool by an essential part of herself. How could that be done?
Mrs. Schlegel: By putting the jewels into the water.
Dr. Jung: Yes, the jewel being the center of her individuality could be sacrificed to the pool; that would be a perfect substitution, a germ of herself given to the pool for the purpose of transformation.
This is all under the assumption that things take a regular course.
You will now hear what actually happens at the pool: Here I pulled a red jewel off the necklace hoping that the water in the pool would cool the jewel which still burned my hand. I threw the single stone into the pool.
Instantly hands reached up from the water and sought to pull me in.
Is that as it should be? What would you criticize?
Miss Taylor: She should not throw in one stone only.
Dr. Jung: That is the trouble, she does not sacrifice the whole necklace, which is expressive of her essence.
Mr. Allemann: She ought to stand the heat, but she tries to cool the jewel.
Dr. Jung: Yes, she tries to avoid the issue.
The jewel is filled with the same fiery essence inside as well as outside, she should be burned through and through, but she tries to cheat by cooling it, which is decidedly wrong.
Also, that she only sacrifices one stone and not the whole necklace shows a certain hesitation or doubt, a reservation; it is not a complete surrender, there are cautious restrictions.
Her relation to the pool is not an indubitable and complete self-sacrifice, she makes conditions.
Then instantly hands reach out from the water.
How does that impress you?
Mrs. Sigg: It is uncanny.
Dr. Jung: Suppose hands emerged from a pool and sought to pull you in.
It is more than uncanny, it is demoniacal; at all events it is something most unnatural.
But what is the meaning of that fact?
Dr. Reichstein: It is the unconscious that wants her. She had earlier the vision of a pool of gold which had a fire underneath, so perhaps she does not trust this pool.
Dr. Jung: This is in contrast to that golden disk.
Here it is just the opposite, water; but it is the equivalent.
The fact that hands reach out from the pool really means, as Dr. Reichstein points out, that the unconscious
wants her completely and unconditionally just because she prefers to make conditions.
That is, of course, due to her fear-she is afraid of the pool, and moreover, she cannot stand that fire burning her from within.
Her attitude to this mystery is very incomplete, so naturally the unconscious takes on a dangerous quality.
If one begins to make prescriptions as to how things ought to be, the unconscious becomes dangerous
if it is really constellated.
As long as it is only slightly aroused, one seems to have one’s freedom, but when it is entirely constellated one is up against it.
If one decides that a thing is all right and goes to it, the danger is much less; it is still uncanny but not so bad.
But when one hesitates, it is very dangerous because the unconscious then possesses the activity which one ought to possess oneself.
So things are now going wrong.
She continues: In great fear I ran, my garments torn by their hands. I ran until I came to the ocean. Into the water of the ocean I threw my necklace.
Here comes an entirely new point of view. What is the ocean?
Mrs. Sigg: Unendlicleit.
Dr. Jung: Well yes, it is pretty big. And what is the difference between the pool and the ocean?
Mrs. Schlegel: The pool is the individual, and the ocean is the collective unconscious.
Dr. Jung: Exactly.
I have repeatedly seen dreams of the sea, where there was also a small inlet, a sort of lagoon or bay, the ocean outside stormy, and inside very quiet water, a sort of harbor.
I remember a dream where a high wall had been built between a bay and the open sea.
These are symbols for the beginning of individuation, when the individual begins to detach from the collective unconscious as a separate entity, assuming the quality of a safe place, a harbor, where ships are protected against the ocean storms.
So the pool is a part of the unconscious which is separated from the whole, one could say; it is essentially of the same nature but much smaller, only a particle in comparison-as an atom is a particle of space, for instance.
It would be like the relation between the atom and space.
Here, you see, she runs away from the individual atom to space, from the infinitely small to the infinitely great, from the individual to the collective.
And then she throws her necklace into the water of the ocean.
Mrs. Crowley: Would there not be an analogy between the single jewel which she threw into the pool and the whole necklace which she threw into the sea?
Dr. Jung: Yes, there is no restriction here; she is doing what she should have done at the pool, it seems to be possible now.
How is that?
This is again a very subtle psychological problem, but it is very frequent and very fundamental.
Dr. Curtius: It is the same situation as in the white city.
Dr. Jung: Yes, she could not stand that, and then she could not bear the pool-meaning the burning jewel.
The white city is the equivalent of the pool. It is also a mandala. She simply cannot stand the mandala.
I once showed you a picture in which there was a five-pointed star and something like an inflammation.
That was the same case, the idea of inflammation was associated with the center of the mandala.
But why does she sacrifice the necklace now to the ocean? What does that mean practically?
Mrs. Crowley: That she gives herself unreservedly to the collective unconscious.
Dr. Jung: But what does that mean practically?
Dr. Reichstein: It would be a kind of regression, for it would be lost in the ocean.
D1: Jung: One might assume that, but you must always remember the magic connection between the jewel and herself.
Like the ring of Polycrates, which was thrown into the sea and brought back by the fish.
Mr. Allemann: In the ocean she is like all the other people. She cannot stand individuation.
Dr. Jung: Exactly.
Mrs. Crowley: It would be dangerous for her to go into the ocean.
Dr. Jung: And the moment one is afraid there is danger.
Nietzsche says: “Verloren bist Du, glaubst Du an Gef ahr. “Thou art lost when thou believe st in peril.
So perhaps she had better not enter either the white city or the pool in the garden.
It is less dangerous to leave it.
But naturally if she leaves the mandala and gets into the collective unconscious, she sacrifices her central value, which would be a regression.
This regression is a particular problem; a regression may be “reculer pour mieux saute1; ‘but it may also be a reculee forever, one might simply lose one’s way and suffer from a loss.
Now we shall see what happens.
You see, it is like the ring of Polycrates.
She says: The waves cast it up again upon the sand. I picked it up and found that it was cooler. I walked away and as I walked trees swayed down towards the necklace and animals followed me. I beheld a great
Chinese statue. Taking the necklace from my neck I placed it before the statue. Then I lay down to sleep for I was very weary.
How would you interpret this? What advantage has she gained?
Mrs. Fierz: She got assistance from those animals and the trees.
Dr. Jung: Well, things behave pretty nicely afterwards, I must say, but I don’t see exactly how it would assist her.
Would you feel it to be an assistance if Barnum and Bailey followed after you?
Dr. Reichstein: The jewels are cooler.
Dr. Jung: Yes, she can wear them now.
The fiery torment has subsided, which is a decided asset. And how has she reached that result?
Mr. Allemann: By throwing herself back into the collective, by not being alone any longer.
Dr. Jung: She is now somewhat dissolved in the collective, but do you think this is an enviable situation?
You see, she can now wear the jewels, and, as Mrs. Fierz says, things begin to behave very nicely; trees are swaying over the jewels, and a menagerie is walking along behind her, it is like a cortege royal.
Mrs. Fierz: There was a similar situation in the visions before, where she was completely in the collective unconscious, and the animals came and licked her face. It was an awfully nice scene, and I think this one is
rather analogous.
Dr. Jung: But what does it mean that the animals are following her and even the trees apparently?
She has a tremendous following.
Mr. Baumann: The jewels are a sign of her individuality; she threw it into the collective unconscious, and now the collective things try to pull it away from her.
Dr. Jung: Yes, but don’t forget that the necklace comes from the primitiveteeth; the animus had it first, and then it was transformed into thejewel, and now she is wearing it.
But she has not yet earned it because she could not stand the heat.
It was cooled down by the collective unconscious, and if one goes into the collective unconscious one cannot help being dissolved.
Where have we the proof that she is dissolved?
Mrs. Sawyer: In the way the animals and trees behave.
Dr. Jung: Exactly, it is participation mystique again.
The trees want her jewels, they bow down before them in order to get them.
There is a participation mystique between the jewel and nature which she has not fully accepted; she has not fully accepted the torment of those jewels so nature tries to get them back.
Also the animals are with her as if she were an animal herself.
Perhaps the animals are seeking their own teeth; like the trees, they want the jewel.
So she is in a peculiar participation mystique as soon as she throws the jewels in the ocean.
Then what does it mean that she puts her jewels in front of the great Chinese statue?
Mrs. Sigg: She gives them back to a kind of animus.
Dr. Jung: A petrified animus. But why a Chinese statue?
Dr. Curtius: It is a psychopompos.
Dr. Jung: Well, it might be a sort of Hermes, a saint or a god that symbolized a petrified historical animus.
But a Chinese statue would stand for Chinese philosophy in her case.
You remember she has already made use of that to express herself.
She is now on the collective road where, when one doesn’t know what to do, one studies yoga perhaps one
does breathing exercises, with particular ways of seating oneself, etc.-imitating it with a secret hope that it may be a trick which somehow works.
She probably shields herself behind the Tao-teh-king, taking the wisdom of the East to substitute for her own foolishness or incapability.
This is again a sort of mitigated concession to the medieval standpoint: don’t carry your own burden, throw it on the church, they will take care of the whole business; confess and repent and let them bother with your sins.
Or: Christ has done something for me already and he will do more, so I can afford to commit more sins, it will be looked after in proper time.
You see, that is the medieval point of view, a declaration of utter moral impotence, and this is somewhat the same, only it is expressed in a rather mitigated and more modern form.
She could not use the Presbyterian form because that wouldn’t work at all, but she falls back on Chinese philosophy as she has done more than once before-a Chinese sage turned up in a moment when she was missing the point.
Well, in the end she lies down to sleep, which means that after the whole development she is fading away, getting unconscious.
This is a pretty negative end to the vision which began in a more or less hopeful way.
So what would one expect next?
Mrs. Crowley: An enantiodromia.
Dr. Jung: Yes, or at least an attempt in that line, an attempt to build up again, or to try the same thing once more, under different conditions.
The next vision begins:
I stood before a white temple. Through the door I could see into the temple which was lit up by the red light of the sacrificial fire.
Do you see a connection here already?
Miss Taylor: The red fire.
Dr. Jung: And mark the fact that it is a sacrificial fire.
She did not speak of sacrifice because that term was to be avoided.
She did not understand it in any way as a sacrificial situation; that the situation wanted her unconditioned
self-sacrifice was just what she avoided seeing.
And what is the white temple?
Mr. Allemann: The white city again.
Dr.Jung: Yes, the whole city is the temple, or the temple is the center of it.
And the temple is very often built like a mandala, like the famous Borobodur in Java, for instance; all the circular temples in antiquity and in early Christianity have the mandala quality.
So it is the white city, or the pool, but this time that red light in the temple obviously comes from the sacrificial fire.
She continues: A priest came out. He stood on the temple steps and called in a loud voice: “Hail to you, the word shall be uttered by tongues of fire.”
What is this?
Mrs. Sigg: It is the revival of the animus.
Dr. Jung: The priest is the animus, which shows that the jewel has gone back to the collective unconscious where the animus receives it.
There it has been before and there it will always be when lost to the conscious.
When the center of the soul that is expressed in the mandala is lost to the conscious, then it is with the animus, and then the animus has power again.
So here the priest that comes out of the temple plays an important role.
He calls out: “Hail to you, the word shall be uttered by tongues of fire.”
It is an announcement. To what does it refer?
Mrs. Schlegel: Pentecost.
Dr. Jung: Yes, it is like the descent of the Holy Ghost in tongues of fire.
And what “word shall be uttered”?
Mrs. Schlegel: Redemption.
Dr. Jung: It means redemption, but the “word” is the Logos.
This is Christian symbolism, which comes from the fact that she got into the collective unconscious, and there she goes back into history, back to the general religious assumptions and opinions.
So her animus priest uses the Christian terminology.
And he performs as he has before, having become powerful again through the possession of the treasure which fell back into the collective unconscious.
For the treasure is power, the power of the animal.
That is, the Self consists, also, of the animal energies of the unconscious, it expresses the whole; the treasure is power in the sense that it represents the instinctual driving-force of the collective unconscious.
The text continues:
He descended the steps and turned so that he faced the temple. Then from out the temple walked many beautiful and strong young men. (A horde of animi!-naturally with the erotic cast.) Each man led by his hand a small lame dwarf. The priest said: “Let the dead return unto the dead.”
This is a most cryptic situation.
What has happened? You see, the animus is in great form in the role of the high priest.
Mr. Baumann: The animus is connected with the natural mind.
Dr. Jung: You mean the natural mind is the lame dwarf?
No, the lame dwarf is quite harmless in comparison with the natural mind.
That the animus is in the role of the high priest shows the power of the animus first of all: he is really the mediator here.
That is not altogether unfavorable or negative, the result is rather good.
You see, he is all on the inner side, which seems propitious; he is here mediating between the collective
unconscious-one might call the temple that-and the patient.
The temple is the mandala, so he is as if negotiating new connections with the mandala; perhaps he is going to teach this woman what she should do, what the situation should be, in order to begin again the game which she lost before.
So he is really not at all negative here.
He is standing facing the temple, facing the mandala, that is, and out of the temple comes that group of young men, all beautiful “Paragonians, “but each leading a lame dwarf by the hand.
What about that?
Mrs. Crowley: Dwarfs are chthonic.
Dr. Jung: Yes, and being lame is rather awful.
They have no power, none whatever, they lead most lamentable existences, they form a tremendous
contrast to the Paragonian animi.
Such a contrast must mean a pair of opposites.
Mr. Allemann: She is again all up in the sky, she has lost the earth by going back to the collective.
Dr. Jung: But how does that show in this contrast?
Mr. Allemann: It is always by an enantiodromia that things are shown.
Dr. Jung: Well, it is less an enantiodromia here than coexistent pairs of opposites.
And when pairs of opposites appear together it is like fire and water; it either means an immediate crash, a tremendous catastrophe, or that they merely counteract each other.
Here it is clear that these Paragonians are, one and all, obstructed by the lame dwarfs, the opposites of
these beautiful young men; they are very wonderful heroes, I suppose, but impeded by the fact that to each is given a lame dwarf.
It is a sort of criticism, it means that that form of animus is checked.
You see, in the former visions, the groups of men-like the marching soldiers-were Paragonians too, but they were all by themselves and unhampered.
There were beautiful young men in the vision of the underground temple of the Great Mother, for instance, and the Great Mother behaved rather erotically with them, but there were no dwarfs.
So it means that those hero animi were then quite valid, they did exist; while here they are checked by their opposites, meaning that that is an inefficient kind of animus which won’t work any longer.
But these young men came out of the temple, so they must have to do with the question of individuation.
It is possible that the animus has invaded the temple, as he would when he has possession of the jewel.
We must see how the thing develops.
The vision continues:
When the men heard this they threw the dwarfs into a pit in the ground and covered them with earth.
You remember the priest said: “Let the dead return unto the dead,” which obviously refers to the dwarfs, because immediately afterwards the young men bury the dwarfs alive.
So the pairs of opposites that were together are separated, the part that would lame the heroic youths is
buried.
Their style would be entirely crippled otherwise. Now why were they together?
It is not usual for pairs of opposites to be together, but in the temple they were united.
I think that is again a reference to the Chinese statue at the end of the last vision.
You see, the patient knows that the main idea in Chinese philosophy is the union of the pairs of opposites.
Here she has united the opposites, she has invaded the temple; therefore the animi must come out of the temple so that she can take possession of her jewel; otherwise the animus possesses the central place.
Now the animus also consists of pairs of opposites, of course.
The Paragonians are always checked by the Vauriens, for instance, according to our textbook of film psychology.
So the high priest animus is here advising the young men and the dwarfs to separate, and we must assume
that since this animus has hitherto played a very important part as the psychopompos, he is advising them for their good, he is not misleading them; we may proceed on that hypothesis.
Mrs. Schlegel: They are separated so that there will be a new activity.
Dr. Jung: Yes, that they may work again.
That they were united was, as I said, in consequence of the application of Chinese philosophy.
Our patient said to herself: “Well, high is built upon low, right is as good as left, night is day and day is night.”
She took that standpoint, and it proved to be an animus point of view because it was merely adopted.
To have such a standpoint, it must be acquired by her own experience, which means fire and pain.
There can be no fire, no suffering, if the pairs of opposites are united.
You see, when one legitimately succeeds in bringing the opposites together, one is at once brought to a level where there is no day and no night, where everything is relative, neither this nor that, the state that the Hindus call ananda, being conscious in bliss, the condition of Brahman.
But she has not earned it, she has funked it as a matter of fact; therefore the pairs of opposites must be torn asunder so that the battle may begin again.
And that is what the Hermes animus is suggesting.
The next thing is: The men wounded themselves with knives and let the blood fall upon the earth.
When they had done this the earth parted and a great green scarab appeared over the grave of the dwarfs.
Why are they wounding themselves with knives?
Miss Taylor: They show her again what she has to do.
Dr. Jung: Yes, the animus is performing, as if in a sort of ceremonial dance, a rite d’entree, what she ought to do.
Here again the sacrificial blood is wanted; she has not been willing yet to sacrifice herself.
She should turn the knife against herself till the blood appears, she should press the thorn into her own flesh, expose herself to the burning pain and to the sacrifice of blood.
The blood falling to the earth is more than just a loss, it is also a charm-then something grows.
And what is the scarab that comes up from the graves of the dwarfs?
Mrs. Pierz: A rebirth symbol.
Dr. Jung: The scarab, the kheper-ra, has always symbolized the rebirth of the sun, as our patient knows.
Green means verdant or vegetation, spring is a spiritual rebirth.
Moreover, rebirth symbolism always means a new uniting of opposites in the process of transformation.
But to bring pairs of opposites together in a static condition is a sort of compromise.
One says sadly: “Alas, yes, black is white and white is black,” and that
causes a sort of indifferent mixture, an apathetic standstill.
The union is only correct when the opposites grow together in a living progress.
You see, the young men nearly ruin themselves here, wounding themselves till the blood pours into the earth.
They are also sacrificed in a way, as the dwarfs are buried alive; the pairs of opposites are injured, they lose
their power, and then they unite.
Through the sacrificial blood from above, flowing down upon the corpses of the dwarfs below, the scarab is
created.
The scarab is a symbol of the union of the opposites, and it is here a rebirth symbol brought about by the activity of the animus.
This is like a mystery play, it is an anticipation of what should happen; it is as if he unconscious were saying to this woman: “The meaning of what I am showing you is really a mystery of rebirth, it means life, but not as you understand it; the vision says you ran away from the mystery of rebirth because you misunderstood it, you thought that pain should not be, or that fire should not be, and so you cheated yourself; what is being performed before your eyes is what should be.”
The situation, then, is that a symbol of rebirth, which is at the same time a reconciling symbol, has been created, and by that the animus shows her how the situation should be understood.
It is like the situation one often meets with in analysis: the interpretation of a dream is not quite satisfactory, the meaning is not fully realized; then an abortive attempt is made to put the problem into life, and that leads to a corresponding disappointment; so one naturally concludes that the whole thing was wrong, that one is on the wrong track.
Then one regresses, dissolves again into unconsciousness, which means into collectivity.
And then the animus begins to perform, to show by what way one should go back, or the meaning of the situation one has missed.
Our patient has missed the bath of rebirth, she should have behaved quite differently with that pool, and now the animus shows her what her attitude ought to be, provided it should occur again, or in order to make the best of it, at least.
Sure enough, when you are ready psychologically, the opportunity is there.
For it is a psychological situation and when you are up to it, it happens quite naturally.
Now this fantasy ends with the scarab. What might we expect after this?
Miss Taylor: That she herself will take the lead again.
Dr. Jung: Yes, it is almost incumbent upon her to take the lead.
We expected before we came to this fantasy that there would be a sort of enantiodromia, that instead of running away she would tackle the thing herself.
But nothing of the kind happened, she stood aside and the animus went ahead.
And now he has had his time, he has created the symbol of rebirth, and we shall see what she is going to do, how far she is able to grasp the meaning of the scarab.
You see, the scarab is the stone in the state of transformation.
Actually, the scarab is a black beetle living on the earth and rolling up the ball in which the egg is said to be buried; the egg is the sun really, and as an egg the sun does not shine, it is dead; but it appears in the activity of the kheper-rii rolling the ball.
The sun is then in the condition of its own father, or its own mother, it is outside of itself.
When the sun does not shine, it is brooding over itself as if it were its own father or mother, regenerating itself, rekindling the fire inside itself, like the phoenix that burns itself in its own nest and then rises
from the ashes again.
Or, as another version says, the phoenix burns up his father’s body; he is his own father and he burns up his father as if it were himself and reappears as his own son.
That is the renewal of the libido, and the question is what her attitude will be towards it, whether the libido will take its own way as an animus performance, or whether she herself will again enter the scene to continue her adventure.
The next vision begins: “I was walking along a road paved with black stones.”
What would this show in the light of what I have just said?
Dr: Reichstein: She is alone, without the animus.
Dr. Jung: Yes, she has taken the road herself.
Presumably she has accepted that renewed libido, she has been able to establish a connection with it.
One does not know for how far, but she is again on her road.
The vision continues: “Beside me ran a stream of molten metal.”
What does that indicate?
Mrs. Crowley: That a fire has taken place. It looks as if the metal had been through the fire.
Dr: Jung: The fact that this stream of molten metal is parallel to her road means that she is now close to a stream which might be the stream of life. But in this case it is something dangerously hot.
So she is again close to that fire which she shirked before.
She has really taken up her problem again with the new libido, embodied in the stream of molten metal, which might have flowed out of a cosmic body of tremendously high temperature; a fire has been kindled, and her way runs parallel to that river.
Then she says: “All the houses were black. I saw a large black house with many flags flying from it.”
What would that point to?
Miss Taylor: It is just the opposite of the white city, it is the black city.
Mrs. Crowley: It sounds like inferno.
Dr. Jung: Yes, it is the opposite of the white city, it is down below in the darkness, in infernal heat, an uncanny place.
One might call it the shadow of the individual monad.
For the individual could not be a reality without casting a shadow, and this casts a tremendous one.
It is the shadow of the white city, which can only exist if there is a city underneath as black as the other city is white.
She says: “I approached it” (the large black house with the many flags flying) “and knocked upon the door.” What would be your idea about such a house?
Miss Taylor: That the people have returned.
Dr. Jung: That people are at home and receiving!
Miss Taylor: In England they always fly a flag when people are at home.
Dr. Jung: But what kind of building would it be? For instance, when I am at home I never fly a flag.
Mr. Baumann: I think there will be a special ceremony in that house.
Dr. Jung: Something public?
There might be a particular feast or celebration, or it is perhaps a temple with temple flags, we don’t know.
She approaches the house and knocks upon the door. Who is living there?
What would you assume?
Mrs. Schlegel: The devil.
Dr. Jung: She says “A strange creature with two animal heads opened the door to me.”
A creature with a human body and two animal heads obviously suggests the devil. “I passed through the house into the garden beyond.”
Where are we now?
Remark: In hell.
Dr. Jung: But we are now passing into the garden.
Mr. Baumann: The garden is Paradise.
Dr. Jung: Again the idea of Paradise, so that hell might be the rim of fire through which one must pass in order to get into the garden.
She says: “In the center of the garden stood a tall white column.”
Instead of a pool, there is now a column. Why a column?
Mrs. Schlegel: It is a masculine symbol.
Dr. Jung: A phallic symbol instead of the pool, the mother symbol.
Also one might say the pool meant a descent, a hole in the ground, and the column would be an ascent.
But why should it rise up just now?
Mrs. Sawyer: Because she is at the bottom.
D1:Jung: At the bottom of hell, so she can only rise.
She was pretty high before, and in order to be renewed she had to go down, but, assuming that she is now in hell, there is no going deeper, the only possibility is to rise.
Why is the column white?
&mark: It is a contrast to the black.
Mrs. Schlegel: Because it leads to light.
Dr. Jung: It is the light in hell, the opposite principle against the blackness.
That gives us a clue to the structure of the inside condition.
There was a white city with a black pool, and now a black city with a white column.
Mrs. Piers: Like the Chinese sign.
Dr. Jung: Yes, the Tai-gi,-tu, the two fishes; one is white with a black center, and the other is black with a white center.
She simply drops from the condition on one side into the condition on the other side, so everything is reversed, and the creature who opened the door seems to be a sort of devil, the chthonic element.
Miss Wolff’ Is it not a Gnostic figure, with the two heads?
Dr. Jung: That is quite possible, but I am rather doubtful whether she has seen those figures.
They are chiefly on Gnostic amulets.
There is a large collection of them in the British Museum, some of which are described in a book by King: The Gnostics and Their Remains.
But I don’t know enough about this monster, how she feels about it, so I won’t emphasize it.
Now she beheld that white column [plate 22] and she said: Suddenly a small man appeared. He wore a crown on his head. In one hand he carried a trident, in the other a long piece of seaweed.
Where does this fellow come from and what is he?
Mrs. Fierz: He is a miniature Poseidon.
Dr. Jung: Yes, a minor sort of Neptune.
A demon or a god who comes from the sea carrying a trident and seaweed, is obviously a water deity or
a water demon, but how did he get into hell?
What has he to do there?
Mrs. Sawyer: She must be at the bottom of the sea.
Dr. Jung: Well, it is terribly hot in hell, and where there is such a tremendous fire there would hardly be water.
So she must have been below the bottom of the sea.
Then she sees the column which gives her the idea of rising, so up she goes.
And then naturally Poseidon appears because she reaches the water again, the level from which she originally dropped.
Mrs. Fierz: But why is he so small?
Dr. Jung: That might be the dwarfish element. Probably there is more about him.
“Who are you?” I asked him.
He answered: “I am he who lives in the green silence of the deep sea.” “What is the tall column standing
here in this dark and quiet garden?”
I asked him. “By that column you shall lose yourself,” he answered.
He disappeared. I left the garden and went down into a cave by the sea.
It is obviously an animus again, a psychopompos, but of what quality?
He does not come from the fire, like the one before who emerged from the temple where the sacrificial fire was burning; he comes from the water sphere.
She has accepted the fire sphere, and therefore the representative of the water sphere appears on the other side-he says that he lives in the green silence of the deep sea.
We understand this white column as simply the idea of rising. It is the Yang in the Yin; she is now in Yin, and
the column is the Yang, the masculine celestial power in contrast to the darkness of the depths.
She obviously does not understand this, so she asks the animus, and his interpretation is that, whatever the column may be, she shall lose herself by it.
Mrs. Crowley: Will she be absorbed in the Yang principle?
Dr. Jung: That is quite possible, but how would you explain his saying: “you shall lose yourself”?
Mr. Allemann: She has to give herself up to find herself, as she should have done in the pool.
Dr. Jung: Exactly, it is the same situation again.
She ran away from the task and went to the ocean, she simply funked the whole situation, and now, when she is prepared again, she has to take up the whole thing once more, the fight begins all over again.
And she is not beginning in the water zone, she has to begin in hell, which is a bit worse.
The problem is simply put before her again, the question whether she is able to give herself up unconditionally.
And her psychopompos says: “By that column-or by that principle-you shall lose yourself.”
It is not voluntary, he doesn’t say that she can avoid it under such and such conditions; it is like a prophecy, because she is now under a different principle.
You see, she was dealing before with the feminine principle, the pool, the mother principle, she was meant to take that form.
But this is Yang, it is not receiving or conceiving, it is not a hollow form; the active principle will now lead her.
That is because she refused the dark principle.
There was the possibility that she could have accepted it, but she denied it; and then comes the Yang, and then she gets into trouble. I can give you a very good example of the way that works practically.
Not long ago I was consulted by a very nice woman, evidently very gifted, very artistic, of whom I knew nothing at all.
She appeared to be extremely extraverted, and she told me she had had a nervous breakdown, that she had tried analysis but got stuck in it, and she was in despair, she was afraid she would have another breakdown.
She said she had a very nice husband but no children.
Apparently she had led a tremendously energetic life, she had a great palatial home, with all sorts of social activities going on, so there was every reason for a breakdown.
I suggested living more quietly, but she said she must have a certain activity or she became too restless.
I asked whether her marriage was satisfactory, and she said: “Oh yes, we have been married for twelve years and everybody says how happy we must be.”
“Then you are quite unique perfectly married. I must enquire about your marriage, it is a miracle.”
“My husband is a most wonderful man, everybody says it is an ideal marriage.”
Usually I say, “but?” when a woman has glorified her marriage for half an hour; when everything white has appeared, then comes the black stuff.
This time, however, I agreed that everything seemed really marvelous, and I didn’t see why she should be so nervous.
“You see, I have adopted a very nice boy, he is sixteen and we love each other very much.” Then I said, “but?” “Well, he looks like his uncle.” “Why should he not look like his uncle?” “The uncle is an awfully good
friend of mine, and it makes me very nervous.” “I don’t see at all! You should be glad that the boy looks like his uncle.” “But that is the man I love, I have been in love with him for a long time.” “Ah ha! That is the
marriage!” “I have known him for seven years, and four years ago he said we ought to go a bit further and proposed a more intimate relation than hitherto.”
And she would not, because she is highly respectable and such a thing does not happen in such a setting.
There was a long pause, till I said, “And then?” “Well Doctor, after I had said no, I thought yes, but then he would not!”
So she has been desperate for four years, and the boy reminds her day and night of the uncle.
One could say it was just tragic, but she has never seen that aspect and believes there is nothing wrong with her marriage.
Now what is the parallel between her case and our case here?
Mr: Baumann: Our patient also did not accept the real situation, the proposition of the man, she did not face it in the right way.
Dr: Jung: The situation was that that woman was more or less in love with the man, and he behaved like a man and tried to go a bit further, because life always wants to amplify itself.
And then she could have received that proposition in the sign Kun, in Yin. But she said no.
That was the pool which she did not enter, where she did not receive when she should have received.
She was bright enough, liberal enough, modern enough, she could have done it; but she said no when it came to her, and then came the drop into hell.
Now she is in the dark with the white Yang column, she is in the power of the Yang, and Yang is torturing her.
She is now playing the man herself, she persecutes that man, woos him, in order to persuade him that she really loves him.
She really should not behave like that, she should not run after that man whom she has refused.
For she did not say yes in the right moment, she did not receive it when it came to her; she was not a woman, she was an opinionated animus, she became a woman too late.
And now to play the role of a persecuted man makes her neurotic; it is too much, it accounts for the
breakdown.
You see, that is also the situation of our patient here.
Do you understand? That is a practical application of this principle. ~Carl Jung, Visions Seminar, Page 639-