A memory of truth (part two)
After this post I plan to share one more to complete this set of three, on the topic of the memory of truth I feel, and understand from Vedanta, as being within all of us. Please see the first post in this series for more on this, or please click here to see this post: A memory of truth (part one).
I ended last time with sharing how I felt as a human species there is an untraceable memory of truth within us, as shared by Vedanta and as implied as being possible from modern science's understanding of how memory can be passed from one generation to the next through one's genes or DNA, this truth being that we are nothing less than the universe itself, as an expression of it.
Vedanta does prescribe methods for reaching this understanding, for bringing back to mind this recollection of our ultimate sense of Self, which ties in with Carl Jung's idea of what we are trying to do psychologically and wholly as humans, which I will reference again shortly. We are trying, whether consciously or not, to bring back our ultimate understanding, that we are not each of us a smaller sense of self but Self, another designation for that ultimate understanding, which could be given a name or label of any kind, whatever feels appropriate and designates the meaning for you.
Vedanta prescribes four methods for reaching this understanding, really a combination, depending on your temperament and your sense of self. Without going into them here, I will relate how many major religions have these approaches within them. (Please feel free to see the local Vedanta Society's website for more information: Vedanta Society of Kansas City.)
Carl Jung, the psychologist who pioneered many ideas of the psyche or mind which we still use today, put forth his theory of archetypes, variably defined or explained in his works as being templates for action or knowledge, wisdom we can make use of, or ignore at our own expense. He said they were universal symbols, of stories and their characters essentially, and they were instructive and resonated for us as a human species, being passed down from time immemorial.
Because they are found within us, in our psyches, it does not become hard to link Jung's theories of archetypes, these universal symbols of stories and their characters, to the modern theory of passing down memories genetically from generation to generation. Conceivably, if you take time as a linear concept, and here is where I think Jung may not speak too much of this, the first creations, the first fruits of them, if you will, back whenever one may conceive of humans as first existing, closer to the dawn of creation, period, whenever or however close to that time period these first humans lived, these stories of theirs, their theories and principles, their artistic creations and expressions--I do believe Jung argued that this is when these universal symbols first developed and emerged, back at the dawn of humankind's creation, or whenever we first emerged from evolution--my theory is that due to the time period in which these stories and their characters emerged, with a universal sense of them stemming from then, this allows archetypes to be conceived of as being closer to a pure representation of and from that dawn of creation and its source, certainly a time period when the universe itself began.
If you want to believe in archetypes and believe in them as another method or way to reach that memory of truth, of who we are as put forth by Vedanta, nothing less than an expression of and the very universe itself, then I think archetypes, if conceived of as being a purer expression of that source, with the accompanying strength of resonance for us that they have, by their very proximity to when humans first emerged, being closer to when the universe itself began, certainly closer than we are today, these archetypes, or universal symbols of stories and their characters, hold the key to unlocking the memory of who we are, where we came from, and where we are going.
How could they not resonate within us at a deeper level, calling to mind a time when we first knew and walked and learned? How could they not hold deeper truths within them that may be buried beneath the thoughts of today, removed so far from when we were perhaps more ourselves and more natural, more closer to the source, in time and in our own pureness of creation?
Jung designated our understanding of wholeness as "Self," perhaps knowingly borrowing from Vedanta in this case, his perceived goal towards which we are all going.
If archetypes are a way to resonate with a deeper level of knowledge, of knowing, which can guide us with wisdom, provide us with instruction that we have always needed and known, then adding to this would be the needed understanding of how archetypes may arise within us or speak to us from outside of ourselves. Depending on who we are and where we are on our path in life, different symbols or depictions of archetypes may be needed for us to know.
They all lead to that ultimate knowledge of understanding--by their very nature, they are closer to when we more purely knew what was known, back when we first emerged, closer to when time itself began, and the universe began to unfold.
Leave a Reply.
Mark Newlon, feeling the embrace of the sacred feminine daily!
Sites of Interest