67 / 100

[paypal_donation_button border=”5″]

Carl Jung Depth Psychology Facebook Group

0a67d 12binner2bworld


586bb 72bbelief2bin2ba2bpersonal2bgod2bletterBlack Books

I. I II . I 8

Jung. But tell me more. What else did you see?

Soul. Your God is the one that keeps both of them captive and imprisoned. He is powerful. A God above the Gods.

I. Why am I inhibited when I think of him?

S. You must be inhibited, since you have nothing to think about him.

I. But the same happens with feeling.

S. So must it be. He is not to be felt, nor touched.

I. But then in what relation am I to him? How do I perceive him? How do I speak to him? What is he to me?

S. You are embedded in him, you swim in him, like the earth and its air in the world aether, the contradictory and incomprehensible thing. Just so is the God, your God. You are in God, when you are in yourself.

I. Why am I not glad about this?

S. Because you are also not at all in yourself, either ahead of or behind yourself, always spellbound by above or below, Philemon or Ka. Why is your gaze fixed on Philemon and Ka? Why do you not see yourself?

I. I just did. I’d like to get on with my work, still forming and editing everything which still must be created.

S. I have nothing against that. But you can’t do your work as long as Ph. and Ka are the ‘sublime ones’ and you are just the seed between two magnets.

Your God is a world. He forms the world and the Gods, grant him the power.

But if you look toward the world, then the Gods rule and your God is weak.

But your God is strong if you stay by him, if you give him the force of your longing. Your God is both powerful and weak.

If you give him force, you draw his world power to yourself.

If you give him no force, his world power leaves you and turns itself against you.

Respect for and disdain of the Gods-that is the mystery.

Whoever fails to grasp this mystery travels the four false ways, either in the world, or to the daimons, or in the past and the Below, or in the
future and the Above.

Respect for and disdain of the Gods begins with respect for and disdain of oneself and takes string precedence over respect and disdain of men, animals, plants and lifeless objects.

Instead of respect and disdain you may above all also say love and hate, since some enclose love in respect and hate in disdain, whereas others however enclose respect in love and disdain in hate.

No foggy language. Your speech is slippery.

God is like a best friend, a beloved, someone who understands, and if he a man does not understand and yet loves and thus always does the wrong thing and so torments and ruins others, he behaves like God.

God is all-knowing, therefore he is not conscious of his own knowledge.

Since he is the world power, he is unconscious of his power. Since he is every single being, he is not conscious of his being.

Since man is conscious of his self by virtue of his limitedness and separateness, God can also reveal the fullness of his being only if he is drawn by individual men, breathed, eaten, and drunk.

Then the God, with human nature added, can so behave and appear that one can say nothing other than that he is conscious of himself as a single man would be, that he loves me as my friend, my brother, my father, my son.

But the arcane seed that lay between the Above and the Below is always revolving, revealing a new incomprehensible side.

So it must be-so life advances.

Then my friend, my brother, my father, and my son no longer understand me and wound me, because he loves me.

You could also say, because he hates me, or equally well: disdains me.

So it is, because the deepest mystery is: respect of and disdain for the Gods.

If God no longer understands me, I must recede into remoteness from God. I must protect myself from his loving vengeance.

Remoteness from God [48/49] is procession along the 4 false ways, it is crucifixion, it is Abraxas.

The 4 false ways are: being one with the outer worldly being, & being one with the soul, being one with splendor, Philemon, being one with the shadow, Ka.

That’s why you must strive to reach God.

He has not changed, since he is eternally the same. He is the All, past and future, he understands nothing, since he is All and differentiated
from nothing.

He is changeless, partly apprehensible to you, and partly not.

I. But tell me, you have always spoken of God as the one who becomes and alters.

S. Why not? I have described him from the other side. God is also the seed that turned and whose new side you fail to grasp. But your essence is God. God does not understand himself, as I told you.

I. Yes, but who am I then?, Who if God is All?

S. You are, and God is. If you were not, how could God be?

I. But there are other men apart from me.

S. They belong to the totality of God, as do you.

That’s why it is said that God was scattered through all men, and why the Egyptians also said that the Mother gathered all the pieces of the God with great care, to put him together again, and just as the Greeks said that the God of the God swallowed him m and completely rebirthed him.

God is the seed and God is the whole essence of man.

If I look with the eyes of man, then God changes, since man does not understand how God changes himself.

But if I speak from the essence of God- and I did exactly this-then God is unchangeably the same, and he doesn’t understand himself as a seed, since above all he is incapable of understanding himself as a singularity, since his essence is totality, and generality, he does not know from omniscience, just as he also does not know himself as existing from universal essence.

Therefore if the seed turns, he does not understand what it is.

He loves his totality, therefore also his seed. But when he cannot reach his seed, he does not suffer from that, but the seed does, as it fails to gam attain totality.

God truly loves the** seed, but he doesn’t see that it has turned and he wants to grasp it, as he always has done, wounding and damaging it. =F-he And the seed must struggle against God, it must will remoteness from God.

Therefore and in as much as the seed is God himself, the seed opposes God and sets itself in God’s place.

Therefore Christians say that God sent his son to save his creation from the misery in which he himself brought them forth and abandoned them.

But the son8 aught men that it is better good to turn one’s eyes away from the created, that it is better to procreate no longer, and that the best thing is to wait for the imminent end and the fulfilment.

But the son was a man and the seed in him rebelled against the law of the world creator.

But the love of God followed him and embraced him in bloody death. Thus the seed was damaged.

Why? It didn’t seek the remoteness from God.

It was not allowed to seek it, since that age was not allowed to know about remoteness from God.

Each age of the world has something that it must
know above all, and something that it is not allowed to know above all.

I. This is all so difficult that it can hardly be thought about. Truly, I don’t follow.

S. Now, it is graspable. We also approach the limits of what is currently understandable and knowable.

But you now understand why God is both changing and unchanging?

It all depends from where one speaks.

When you speak of yourself out of yourself it is somewhat different from when you speak of yourself from the outside, from the world, with the eyes of the world.

Even so the two statements contradict each other, so you still are, and the beholding world also is.

The same way with God. Seen from your standpoint, he is changeable. Seen in himself, he is unchanging.

He knows nothing of change since he does not know himself as a seed. But the seed turns.

But what is a seed as a whole? Nothing. Therefore it: the totality does not feel it.

But surely the seed feels it, since it feels abandoned and misunderstood by the totality. But the totality does not understand the individual.

Therefore the individual must seek the way to God. He must thus draw God into himself. But how does this happen?

This can only happen by his clearly showing God how he has turned, how he has changed.

He  must explain himself to him. He must find words and expressions by which he can reach God.

Man, who must always work as the mediator for the part of God in him and the seed, can never do this through conscious devising or puzzling out, but only through the help of his soul, or through the help of someone who still has the soul of the other in them.

The seed must always turn, since that is the godhead of life. Life is movement in its innermost.

I. But if the seed is God, and the whole world we is God, “Where and what is man?

S. I tell you, man is completely in God. He is the mediator between God as world and and God as seed. Philemon sees God only as goal, Ka only as ground.

You see him through me as seed and world. Since as a being God is the greatest and the smallest.

I. Therefore man would be the mediator in the transformation process of God.

S. And not even the only mediator, as animals and plants also have their role in this work.

I. Truly a Danaid’s barrel of endlessness and meaninglessness …

S. Therefore we should rightly remain silent.

What should one actually say about “end” and “meaning”?

How many hundred worlds have been built or hung above one another?

How much sense and nonsense do they contain? So no pointless asides!

Have you understood, that God is someone who becomes and who is?

I. I believe so.

S. So now hear about another redeemer.

He also taught that it is good to avert one’s eyes from the created, that it would be better to procreate no longer and that the best
thing would be to bring the suffering of the world to an end.

He rebelled against the creator of the world and his law of continuously engendering life.

He sought remoteness from God and received it, since God always loves the seed, whether it be close to or distant from him.

And so he also was again in God, but not crucified, since the seed was not damaged.

I. Wasn’t that a good solution? Why don’t we go on this way?

S. It is not our way. May the possibilities of understanding be cursed. One can see good ways! Why don’t we take them?

We are fools, culpable idiots, who don’t take the good roads.

Blindness, dullness, and stupidity would be better, so that one couldn’t recognize the good way: it merely hinders us in our own way.

But how much lighter would our way be, if we could not see and understand the good way! There is only our way!

And it is the worst of all ways! I must tell you that this solution is bad.

First, it is old, and second, it extinguishes the effectiveness of the seed. One no longer feels the turning.

I. It appears to me that the seed of which you speak is already the the kernel of the innermost, but also the same as what one calls the devil.

S. You haven’t missed by much. Beyond the seed God comes to meet the shadow, his adversary.

When he is fiery glow, his adversary is blue starlight, coldness within fire, snow on the embers. God is in conflict with himself.

Both redeemers teach the good, the redemption from good and evil. Yes, both know the good way, even when they contradict one another.

But they are one in the good. Yes, if we went toward the good, we would know where and when.

For clear simple paths are mapped out for us by the masters, and travelled by countless people. Why don’t we take them?

We shouldn’t strive toward the good, but toward life. life, so it is called in us, is higher than the good, since the good is just a fruit of life.

But nowhere is the fruit more valuable than the tree on which it grew. Yes, if we went toward the good!

But it is not our time, it does not want it, since it wants life, which is given to our time as more sacred, even certain evil actions
appear better and more sacred than the merely good. We cannot defend ourselves.

It takes the other road, the one toward life, since life for us is the good, since we know that life can be good.

We cannot believe that life must die unlived.

We believe that life is a flame that burns in itself and radiates itself. ~The Black Books, Vol. VII, Page 176-181