In earlier articles I have discussed archetypal forms or images that appear in art or literature for the arts are a means of expressing what is happening at the deepest levels of our psyches. However, when I explore the arts seeking signs of archetypal meaning, I inevitably wind up at what could be called the great religious questions of mankind. Man has been a religious being as far back into prehistory as scholars can postulate. Jung devoted a chapter in his Psychology and Religion to what he believed to be "the facts which bear out the existence of an authentic religious function in the unconscious mind." (Jung 3)
Before going further, let us clarify what we mean by the word "religion." In modern culture we often begin to consider the many systems that have developed over time to serve the religious function. The root word in Latin, however, has nothing to do with organizations and systems; those are the structures which have developed from some religious experience and which often as not lose the true meaning of the word religion in becoming too concretized and rigid. The Latin word "religare," from which "religion" is derived, simply means "to bind back." Thus, the religious function in the truest sense of the word is that which binds us back to the original wholeness from which we came. As we develop an ego and become concerned about survival and our place in the material world, we tend to grow further out of touch with the archetypal realm that binds us back to the original wholeness. To use a religious metaphor, we are cast out of the Garden of Eden (original wholeness). Consciousness and free will separate us from that innocence and at the same time cut us off from part of ourselves. The religious function exists as a medium for binding our conscious selves back to that original wholeness.
When Jung discusses religion, he makes it clear that what he means by the word "is a careful and scrupulous observation of what Rudolf Otto aptly termed the 'numinosum,' that is, a dynamic existence or effect not caused by an arbitrary act of will." He goes on to say, "The numinosum is either a quality of a visible object or the influence of an invisible presence causing a peculiar alteration of consciousness." (Jung 4) This is where the archetypal realm comes into play to give meaning to something which otherwise might be meaningless. It is the experience of the numinous, the encounter with the archetype, which reconnects us to the original wholeness. Thus, religion is not a set of dogma nor a structure or organization.
Go To Page: 1 2
| Here's the follow-up discussion on this article: | View all related messages |
For a complete listing of article comments, questions, and other discussions related to Bonnie McCarson's Jungian Psychology topic, please visit the Discussions page.