Carl Jung on Mandala Symbolism
The Sanskrit word mandala means “circle” in the ordinary sense of the ^vord. In the sphere of religious practices and in psychology it denotes circular images, which are drawn, painted, modelled, or danced. Plastic structures of this kind are to be found, for instance, in Tibetan Buddhism, and as dance figures these circular patterns occur also in Dervish monasteries.
As psychological phenomena they appear spontaneously in dreams, in certain states of conflict, and in cases of schizophrenia.
Very frequently they contain a quaternity or a multiple of four, in the form of a cross, a star, a square, an octagon, etc. In alchemy we encounter this motif in the form of quadralura circuli.
In Tibetan Buddhism the figure has the significance of a ritual instrument {yantra), whose purpose is to assist meditation and concentration.
Its meaning in alchemy is somewhat similar,
inasmuch as it represents the synthesis of the four elements which are forever tending to fall apart.
Its spontaneous occurrence in modern individuals enables psychological research to make a closer investigation into its functional meaning.
As a rule a mandala occurs in conditions of psychic dissociation or disorientation, for instance in the case of children between the ages of eight and eleven whose parents are about to be divorced, or in adults who, as the result of a neurosis and its treatment, are confronted with the problem of opposites in human nature and are consequently disoriented; or again in schizophrenics whose view of the world has become confused, owing to the invasion of incomprehensible contents from the unconscious.
In such cases it is easy to see how the severe pattern imposed by a circular image of this kind compensates the disorder and confusion of the psychic state—namely, through the construction of a central point to which everything is related, or by a concentric arrangement of the disordered multiplicity and of contradictory and irreconcilable elements.
This is evidently an attempt at self-healing on the part of Nature, which does not spring from conscious reflection but from an instinctive impulse.
Here, as comparative research has shown, a fundamental schema is made
use of, an archetype which, so to speak, occurs everywhere and by no means owes its individual existence to tradition, any more than the instincts would need to be transmitted in that way. Instincts are given in the case of every newborn individual and belong to the inalienable stock of those qualities which characterize a species.
What psychology designates as archetype is really a particular, frequently occurring, formal aspect of instinct, and is just as much an a priori factor as the latter. Therefore, despite external differences, we find a fundamental conformity in mandalas regardless of their origin in time and space.
The “squaring of the circle” is one of the many archetypal motifs which form the basic patterns of our dreams and fantasies.
But it is distinguished by the fact that it is one of the most important
of them from the functional point of view.
Indeed, it could even be called the archetype of wholeness. Because of this
significance, the “quaternity of the One” is the schema for all images of God, as depicted in the visions of Ezekiel, Daniel, and Enoch, and as the representation of Horus with his four sons also shows.
The latter suggests an interesting differentiation, inasmuch as there are occasionally representations in which three of the sons have animals’ heads and only one a human head, in keeping with the Old Testament visions as well as with the emblems of the seraphim which were transferred to the evangelists, and—last but not least—with the nature of the Gospels themselves: three of which are synoptic and one “Gnostic.”
Here I must add that, ever since the opening of Plato’s Timaeus (“One,
two, three . . . but where, my dear Socrates, is the fourth?”) and right up to the Cabiri scene in Faust, the motif of four as three and one was the ever-recurring preoccupation of alchemy.
The profound significance of the quaternity with its singular process of differentiation extending over the centuries, and now manifest in the latest development of the Christian symbol,^ may explain why Du chose just the archetype of wholeness as an example of symbol formation.
For, just as this symbol claims a central position in the historical documents, individually too it has an outstanding significance.
As is to be expected, individual mandalas display an enormous variety.
The overwhelming majority are characterized by the circle and the quaternity.
In a few, however, the three or the five predominates, for which there are usually special reasons.
Whereas ritual mandalas always display a definite style and a limited number of typical motifs as their content, individual mandalas make use of a well-nigh unlimited wealth of motifs and symbolic allusions, from which it can easily be seen that they are endeavouring to express either the totality of the individual in his inner or outer experience of the world, or its essential point of reference.
Their object is the self in contradistinction to the ego, which is only the point of reference for consciousness, whereas the self comprises the totality of the psyche altogether, i.e., conscious and unconscious.
It is therefore not unusual for individual mandalas to display a division
into a light and a dark half, together with their typical symbols.
An historical example of this kind is Jakob Bohme’s mandala, in his treatise XL
Questions concerning the Soule. It is at the same time an image of God and is designated as such.
This is not a matter of chance, for Indian philosophy, which developed
the idea of the self, Atman or Purusha, to the highest degree, makes no distinction in principle between the human essence and the divine.
Correspondingly, in the Western mandala, the scintilla or soul-spark, the innermost divine essence of man, is characterized by symbols which can just as well express a Godimage, amely the image of Deity unfolding in the world, in nature, and in man.
The fact that images of this kind have under certain circumstances a considerable therapeutic effect on their authors is empirically proved and also readily understandable, in that they often represent very bold attempts to see and put together apparently irreconcilable opposites and bridge over apparently hopeless splits.
Even the mere attempt in this direction usually has a healing effect, but only when it is done spontaneously.
Nothing can be expected from an artificial repetition or a deliberate imitation of such images. ~Carl Jung, Mandala Symbolism, Para 713-717
https://carljungdepthpsychologysite.blog/
Carl Jung Depth Psychology on Instagram
