One of the archetypes which lies at the basis of all religions is that of spirit. It is however, an archetype that seems to function in one�s life whether it is acknowledged as connected to a spiritual or religious dimension or not. It is my intention to review some of Jung�s findings & beliefs on spirits & autonomous complexes.

      Jung states that the ability of the psyche to experience God is a fact of experience that occurs with relative frequency & must be recognized by scientific psychology (Jung, 1960). Seeing ghosts & being bewitched are also facts of experience which are so common that virtually everyone knows what is meant by them. At all times & in all places the psyche has claimed to experience ghosts. Jung clarifies that the existence of a spirit or God cannot be proved in the external world, but the experience is still valid.

      Jung points out that in many cultures the experience of a spirit denotes a ghost or a supernatural being which has caused a person to be beside himself, to fly into a passion, to be seized with rage, or to feel as if something had gotten into him or possessed him (Jung, 1960). A person can let himself be carried away by imprudent talk or his tongue can run away with him, which are the same as saying his talk has become an independent being that has snatched him up & run off with him. Another example is the experience that a bad attitude can poison the atmosphere, & is contagious in that a single person can spoil the spirit of a whole group. But on the other side of this, a joyous child can also brighten the spirits of others. It is also common to hear it said that someone is acting in the spirit of his father, or in a new spirit, or in the guiding spirit of the group (Jung, 1960).

      Jung takes this further by pointing out that in both the normal person & the neurotic, there are obvious interferences & disturbances that appear to come from other spheres : a mood may suddenly change, a person forgets what they don�t want to, a melody pursues them for the whole day, they can�t sleep, or they may have annoying dreams (Jung, 1960). A person may want to do something about it, but the energy for doing it has disappeared. Jung points out that with neurotics there is also the paradoxical experience of having amazing pathological symptoms, & yet no diseased organ. The patients temperature may shoot up without any organic disorder, he may suffer suffocating states of anxiety without any real foundation, or he may be harassed by obsessive ideas & skin rashes that come & go regardless of all reason & all therapy (Jung, 1960). It would seem that these disturbances are caused by unconscious processes that have an intelligence not inferior to, & in fact often superior to a person�s conscious insights (Jung, 1960). Science has tended to call this wider consciousness that it cannot understand, the unconscious, & has tended to use this term as a �catch-all�. Jung believes that this higher or wider consciousness is connected with the life ruling power of the spirit which is outside of or above the ego consciousness.

      Jung believes that ghosts & hauntings are a universal phenomena & experience which cannot be simply dismissed as out of hand. He points out that the modern scientific mind has too hastily suppressed them as superstitions & is thereby losing a great many factual reports. He believes that ghosts & spirits are psychic facts in dreams & have been too quickly academically done away with. He also states though, that he does not believe it is within his realm to determine if they really exist, but rather he merely intends to deal with the fact of the archetype (Jung, 1960).

      Jung points out that one of the sources of the belief in spirits is with primitive man. The world of spirits was as real to him as the physical world he lived in. He was particularly open to his experience of spirits because of his na�ve awareness of their existence. To him the phenomena of seeing ghosts was direct evidence of the existence of the spiritual world. Jung goes on to point out that modern man sees the same things, but calls them dreams, fantasies & neurotic symptoms (Jung, 1960). The primitive man sees the people that appear in dreams as spirits or ghosts, & within this context sees the dream as being inspired by the spirit or ghost.

      Another belief in spirits stems from psychogenic diseases & nervous disorders, especially hysterical ones. The primitive man believed that these were caused by spirits of people who were either living or dead. The strong after affects of parents on the lives of many, have led to ancestor worship in many primitive cultures, because of the belief that it is their parents� spirits who are tormenting them (Jung, 1960). These disorders fall mainly in the range of what can be seen to be schizophrenia (delirious, hallucinations or catatonics). All over the world the insane have been regarded throughout history, as being possessed by evil spirits. This belief has tended to be supported by the patients own auditory & visual hallucinations (Jung, 1960). Very often the insane person hears voices that are those of relatives or those who are connected with his conflict. It is not surprising that the primitive mind has attributed these voices to the spirits of the dead, or to a whole different class of spirits who have never had physical human bodies (demons).

      It is also probably apparent to most that dreams do not come from one�s own conscious motivation. They are not under a person�s control, but are autonomous complexes that obey their own laws. As a result of this acknowledgement, modern man has given them the identity of man�s unconscious, & assumed they have their own laws that govern their occurrence. It would seem that we do not control the total of our psychic existence if this is in fact the case. We do not have control of our dreams & their content nor do we have control of visions. These are similar to dreams, except that they occur in a waking state. It seems that the vision is a momentary eruption of unconscious context into one�s conscious processes (Jung, 1960). This same eruption also seems to occur in mental disturbances where the person may hear psychic contents that have nothing to do with where his conscious mind is concentrated at the moment. These patients also have the common experience of having delusional ideas, opinions & convictions forcibly thrust on them against their will, apparently from their unconscious. I believe it�s also safe to say as does Jung that most people have had the disconcerting experience of having a thought come to us against our will or suddenly vanishing against one�s will.

      The primitive has always avoided spirits & places haunted by them with fear because of the knowledge that they do not belong to & are not controlled by one�s ego. With the primitive, pathology was seen in two different ways. One was the loss of soul, & the other was the addition of or possession by a spirit. Jung points out this is a balanced concept in that the soul complex belongs to the ego whereas the spirit complexes do not. These two complexes correspond respectively to the personal unconscious & the impersonal or collective unconscious (Jung, 1960). The personal unconscious contains those experiences that are due to an individual�s life experiences & the collective unconscious has contents that are the joint possession of a subgroup, nation or all mankind. The universal ness of these images can be seen in similar symbols in mythology & mental derangements such as schizophrenia the world over. These images can not be accounted for by the man�s personal experiences in life.

      Many times the association of an unconscious complex with the ego has had a strange & fascinating feeling to many people. The conscious mind seems to fall under it�s spell & suffers a state of alienation from normal life. Many mental illnesses are marked by the eruption of these alien contents & the phenomena of being seized by weird & monstrous thoughts (Jung, 1960). These contents from the collective unconscious do indeed appear or seem to be from the outside & have not surprisingly been regarded as spirits by the primitive mind the world over. This same phenomena has been labeled as a psychic complex by the scientific community.

      These autonomous complexes can create disturbances in the readiness of a person to react by inhibiting an answer, causing a delay, or by causing an unsuitable reaction. Jung also noted that those complexes can produce sudden confusion, violent affects, depressions, anxiety states, & hallucinations. Jung notes that it seems at times as if a strange being does speak through a patient, when the words come from an autonomous complex (Jung, 1960). It seems to fit exactly what the primitives relegated to possession by spirits.

      It also seems that ideals & proverbs can take possession of a person like spirits. A proverb is the summing up of experience in the spirit & can strike upon a receptive mind with great power (Jung, 1960). It may be what Jesus meant when He said �My word is spirit & truth�. Life lived under the mastery of this guiding principle, is being ruled by the spirit or spiritual life. The more absolute & compelling the ruling principle is, the more it is an autonomous complex that affects ego consciousness. They are not magic spells, but only gain mastery when we respond to them. A person must be emotionally ready to accept the principle or idea before it can become an autonomous complex. Without the acceptance by the emotions the principle or idea is just an intellectual, empty, powerless word.

      These compelling ideas or autonomous complexes can also be put before the ego consciousness as a command. Jung states that it is not an autonomous complex unless it comes to us forcibly & visibly proves it�s superiority to the conscious will (Jung, 1969). In this way the guiding principle can rule a person�s life with indisputable authority.

      It seems that these autonomous complexes have a different set of laws than the ego complex, with which most people are familiar & would probably like to believe is all there is. Jung gives the sudden unexpected conversion of Paul on the road to Damascas as an example. He points out that this autonomous complex of the vision of Jesus broke through to Paul�s unconscious because he was ripe for & ready to integrate the confrontation of such a complex. Jung says this was not actually a vision of Jesus, but a vision of the Christ complex that Paul had within him. Jung clearly makes the distinction between the real thing & the complex, although he later says that this complex or archetype is the touching of the microcosm with the macrocosm, which if that is the case it may merely be semantics as to whether it was the real thing or not. Jung defends this position by saying he is an empirical psychologist who deals who deals with experiences within man & is not in the position to judge philosophical or absolute reality.

      He goes on to explain that the reason Paul was persecuting Christians was that he refused to acknowledge this Christ complex in himself, & so projected his struggle & lashed out at those who had already manifested his unconscious complex (Jung, 1960). This same concept of projection also applies to the autonomous complexes in dreams, visions, pathological hallucinations & delusional ideas. The ego is unconscious of them, so they end up in projected form. In dreams they are represented by other people, & in visions & voices they are projected as other personalities. Within this context spirits are autonomous complexes that are unconscious, & appear as projections because the ego is not aware of them as a part of the whole man.

      Many times symbols are used to dimly point to the meaning or nature of the spirit. It cannot be described or explained, but merely pointed to. The spirit seems to demand expression as a psychic complex. Jung states that the speed & power that spirit was able to change men�s minds through Christian symbols in the second century is amazing (Jung, 1960). He notes that it is not surprising that the creativeness of this spirit was felt to be of godlike superiority.

      Jung also points out that autonomous complexes often arise from the collective unconscious at times when the events of life have caused an individual�s previous attitude to break down (Jung, 1960). This has tended to happen in history when nations or groups of people have gone through intense political & social changes. At such times autonomous complexes from the collective unconscious can rise up & force themselves on people. The result of this would probably take the form of mass disorientation & pathology, if the compelling complex was allowed to replace reality. This can probably be seen most clearly in mob action or the reactions of nations at war as they savagely or demonically try to annihilate one another. It is as if they are possessed by ravaging complexes.

      It is this feeling of the superiority & absolute authority of the spirit that can be a dangerous quality. It should be spoken of as a wider consciousness & not a higher consciousness because there appears to be many spirits, both light & dark (Jung, 1960). Care should be taken because just as there is a passion for unrestricted material life, so there is a passion to sacrifice all one�s life to the spirit because of it�s superior power. As has been pointed out this is dangerous because apparently some spirits will drag men away from life & will seek fulfillment of themselves instead.

      The spirit is necessary for life since a mere ego life is inadequate & unsatisfactory, but it appears there is need for caution in this realm. The spirit or autonomous complex, stemming from archetypes, is necessary to give expression in life of those things of us that are outside ego consciousness, but life is also essential to the spirit, because without it it cannot express itself. For this reason the spirit should probably not be seen as something absolute, but as something relative that needs to be perfected & completed in life (Jung, 1960). From Jung�s documenting of empirical experience it seems that this is the healthiest approach to these spiritual archetypes. He seems to have uncovered the pattern for two different kinds of spirits. One that brings beneficial insight that would lead us to fullness of life, & one that would possess us, rob us of life, & fulfill only it�s own desires. Within the sphere of spiritual archetypes this could probably be regarded as distinguishing between the spirit of God & the spirits of demons. It appears that God would probably tolerate our cautiousness in this realm & would try to gently lead us, but demons would demand & compel us to obey, & interfere with & possess our life instead of fulfilling it.

      Jung also recognized that mediums today are trying to filter these archetypes from the unconscious to the conscious in the same way that analytic psychology is, the difference being that the mediums acknowledge these psychic phenomena as spirits & not as autonomous complexes or archetypes. He notes that these spiritualists are trying to bring forth the teachings of these spirits in the same way that analytic psychologists seek to bring the truths out of the collective unconscious (Jung, 1960). They both seek to deal with spirit in essentially the same way, but it goes beyond psychology to the metaphysical when the reality of spirits becomes a question.

      Jung also points out that science is a product of the intellect & that the intellect is only one of several psychic functions, & as such cannot give a complete picture of the world. There is much of the unconscious that the intellect simply does not or cannot perceive. It is not at its� disposal. With this in mind he points out what we should not deny other possibilities just because the intellect can�t empirically test them (Jung, 1960).

      In many Eastern religions the mandalas are also formed as circles. They may take the form of a circular lotus that contains a square sacred building with four gates, indicating the four cardinal parts & the four seasons (Jung, 1938). In many the centre contains a Buddha or some other deity. These mandalas become what are called yantras which are used for contemplation, concentration & the final transfiguration of the yogi�s consciousness into the divine all consciousness. The quaternity or number four is the different manifestations of God in His creation, the God within (Jung, 1938). Jung points out that this mystical idea is what is naturally supported in unconscious dreams. He also found that when asked, his patients believed this four to symbolize themselves, which he believed was a systematic blindness due to Christianity�s belief that deity is outside man (Jung, 1938). Jung then clarifies that this is a Christian concept that is not shared by mystical, Eastern & yogic religions who believe the essential identity of God & man to be the same. Again he acknowledges that Christianity regards this as heresy & again he implies that this is probably due to a lack of proper insight.

      The next symbol or archetype that Jung had to puzzle through was the fact the overwhelming majority of mandalas in patients� dreams have no deity occupying the centre. What is there, is a symbol of different meaning : a star, a flower, a precious stone, a serpent coiled up, a human being, but never a god (Jung, 1938). Jung then states that a dream is just what it should be & is not a disguise for something else. The mandala is an expression of a certain religious attitude (Jung, 1938). He then explains that religion is a relationship to the highest or strongest value, be it positive or negative, by which you are unconsciously possessed. It is always the greatest power or psychic factor of one�s system which is the god. The modern mandala is an involuntary confession of a particular mental condition (Jung, 1938).

      Jung then points out that for a Christian the triumphant Christ is the central symbol & represents his making peace with God; he has sacrificed his own will, & has submitted himself to the will of God. He then clarifies that the lack of a deity in the mandala signifies there is no submission or reconciliation to a deity, but rather the place of the deity is taken by the wholeness of man (Jung, 1938). Jung states that this is typical of people who can�t project the divine image any longer, & that they are in danger of inflation or dissociation. He then explains that the round or square enclosures of the mandala are a magical means of protecting & preventing an outburst & disintegration of the personality (Jung, 1938). The mandalas thus supports an exclusive concentration upon oneself which is not egocentricity, but rather self control to avoid inflation & dissociation. The circle protects or isolates an inward process that should not become mixed with things outside (Jung, 1938). This replacement of the deity by the complete man, Jung claims, is a natural, spontaneous & unconscious occurrence. The idea of god is no longer projected as an autonomous entity so the unconscious produces a new idea of man deified or divine (Jung, 1938). This symbolizes the vessel or the room in which the transformation of man into a divine being takes place (Jung, 1938).

      Again this interpretation seems to be shaped to fit mystical teaching, & again Jung acknowledges Christianity would regard this as heresy. It seems that even though Jung acknowledges this, his next move is always to perfect the imperfections in the Christian symbols & archetypes. Any contradictory archetype to his chosen interpretation seems to be swept away by the insightful brush of his archetype improving imagination. I think perhaps it is Jung who may have the systematic blindness. If he sets contradictory archetypes up as distinct & opposite possibilities, that is one thing, but to rationalize away one in order that everything fits your preferred interpretation, is not in the interest of academic or scientific integrity.

      Jung goes on to state that these processes that led to the formation of the mandala, & the mandala itself are confirmations of alchemist philosophy. He then points out that alchemist teaching is clearly an extension of the Gnostic belief & teaching that was regarded as heretical by Christianity, & accordingly driven underground in the second century (Jung, 1938). Jung sees this contradiction, but deals with it flippantly by joking about the fact that it seems the symbolism connected with the mandala, as well as many symbols in modern psychological occurrences, trace back to pagan sources (Jung, 1938). Pagan is just a word & should not have a negative connotation, but the two distinctly different archetypal patterns should be acknowledged & not merely assumed to be deviant offshoots of the same truth. Christianity emphatically claims they are not, even though mystical philosophy claims they are. Jung states metaphysics is not his jurisdiction, but rather the psychological experience of archetypes, but it is obvious he does have a metaphysical belief from the way he reinterprets & perfects the imperfections in Christian symbols & archetypes.

      Vera Von der Heydt (1976) claims that Jung found in medieval alchemy an attitude of mind which he had only previously found in Indian philosophy, & believed it to contain the Western spiritual heritage. In her book she points out that alchemy is a pre-Christian Gnostic system based on the idea of the perfectibility of matter, & in man�s potential to attain self realization through self knowledge. Within this mystical system, as in Eastern philosophy, there is also an occult side, in which the mystic may give in to the temptation to use magical powers over nature rather than striving solely for this mystical union (Von der Heydt, 1976). She claims many do.

      The main concern of the alchemist system appears to be the uniting of opposites by man whose desire was for self perfection. They believe that the vile & lower is in essence different from the noble & higher only in the way it manifests itself. The clash between opposites in the universe can be seen as a male-female friction with the supreme work of man being a mystical union of the two (Von der Heydt, 1976). The belief in the basic unity of all things is described as a paradox. It is interesting to note that they believed that the soul was the result of an incestuous union of their chemicals & that during this process of union that they were in danger of being overwhelmed by demonic powers. In their philosophy Lucifer was seen as the bringer of light as well as the bringer of darkness (Von der Heydt, 1976). Jung saw this as a parallel between the unconscious shadow & the unconscious Self. They acknowledge within their teaching that for their will & reason to be uncontrollably driven by something welling up from the deep unconscious is one of the great mysteries of human life, & that it is possible for this to have a movement towards wholeness (Von der Heydt, 1976). Out of this struggle the alchemists hope to experience a synthesis in the form of a mandala within themselves which Jung equates with the Self, the centre of the personality (Von der Heydt, 1976).

      Again another possible way of looking at it is that these forces are demonic, as the alchemist acknowledges, but that unlike the alchemist belief, they may not be another side of God, but may in fact be totally separate & in rebellion to God as Christianity believes. It is a possibility ignored by Jung.

      Von der Heydt points out that the idea of transformation & the change of one thing into it�s opposite that is found in Western alchemy can also be found in Chinese alchemy which led to Taoism & Zen Buddhism (Von der Heydt, 1976). In Chinese alchemy man�s body is inhabited by the same gods that govern the universe. The union of the Yin/Yang (Male/Female) principles, results in Jung�s new Self which is enlightened & immortal. Jung states that the alchemist philosophy is an amazing confirmation of the dreams & fantasies of modern man (Jung, 1938). Von der Heydt makes an interesting aside when she notes that female alchemist occultists such as Cleopatra would later have been considered witches (Von der Heydt, 1976). She points out that alchemy carries the earth, body or shadow side of Christian teaching.

      She also notes the difference, in the Mass for Christians is in honour of God the Redeemer, undertaken by man who stands in need of redemption, whereas the alchemist sees it as the labour of man the redeemer, seeking to awaken the redemption of the slumbering divine world soul (Von der Heydt, 1976). Von der Heydt claims that the ultimate experience is enlightenment, Tao, Samadhi, satori, the Self & that Jung�s analytical psychology is today�s heir of alchemy (Von der Heydt, 1976). It is a recognition that whatever is darkest & vilest can be transformed into the highest value.

      Again this is one possibility of the way reality stands, but it should be recognized that Christianity gives a completely different perspective. Evil is not seen as another side of God & all is not seen as One. The difference should be made clear, with it being plain that both interpretations can�t be right, & then leave it up to others as to which interpretation of archetypes they wish to choose. Jung doesn�t do this, but rather glosses over the Christian deviation from his belief.

      Ira Progoff (1973) perhaps makes it clearer in Jungian terms by saying that archetypes are that part of the human personality, that as a part of nature, reflect the macrocosm in the unfulfilled seed of it�s being. This conception sees the personality as a universe in miniature. At it�s depth, the psyche contains reflections of the larger universe. Jung saw the Self as a small part of the universe in miniature, a direct point of contact with all the world. When experienced in this way the universe becomes a kind of continuum on a psychic level. It is on this level that the Self corresponds both psychologically & cosmically to Tao & other mystical traditions. There is an essential Oneness & unity of the universe, with man�s psyche being merely an extension of it. Jung�s work with archetypes was to work out empirically the specific forms in which the macrocosm becomes manifest in the microcosm of human personality.

      I believe that this has indeed been a valid empirical advancement of psychology by Jung, but I also believe that he has perhaps come to a wrong conclusion about the nature of the Self to the universe. Jung�s work with the archetypes he has identified as common to both modern man (dreams, visions, hallucinations), & the different mythologies, religions & philosophies of the world, is an amazing feat. I believe that he has indeed established many facts of experience that are common in these different experiences & does indeed give us the opportunity of seeing the nature of man�s psyche in relation to the universe. I do, however, believe that he has also shuffled off to the side some of the empirical experiences that he discovered, & glossed them over with a mystical haze. He has in effect ignored the possible truth within the Christian interpretation of these archetypes.

Hall, Calvin S., A Primer of Jungian Psychology. New York: Taplinger Publishing Co. 1973.

Jung, C.G. The Structure & Dynamics of the Psyche. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. 1960.

Jung, C.G. Psychology & Religion. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1938.

Profoff, Ira. Jung, Synchronicity & Human Destiny. New York: The Julian Press Inc. 1973.

Von der Heydt, Vera. Prospects for the Soul. London: Darton, Longman & Todd Ltd. 1976.