C.G. Jung on India

Been reading Jung of late. Following are few excerpts from the book "Psychology and the East" by renowned psychologist Carl Gustav Jung on what things India can teach the West (and these days, itself). For a first visit (in December 1937), he makes many good points which some of us are fast forgetting. I do not find fault with him yet for having wrong observations on the Indian dhoti (he thinks people cannot fight in it, perhaps he had not seen Kalaripayattu being practiced) and studying Buddhism separately, since he had little time to explore India properly. I however find two of these excerpts very important.

Below is an excerpt from the chapter "What Indians can teach us". Jung feels that Indians do not think as a Westerner does, but he perceives his thinking. In that way, he resembles a primitive person.
~

"I am now going to say something which may offend my Indian friends, but actually no offence is intended. I have, so it seems to me, observed the peculiar fact that an Indian, in as much as he is really Indian, does not think, at least not what we call "think". He rather perceives the thought. He resembles the primitive in this respect. I do not say that he is primitive, but that the process of his thinking reminds me of the primitive way of thought production. The primitive's reasoning is mainly an unconscious function, and he perceives its results. We should expect such a peculiarity in any civilization which has enjoyed an almost unbroken continuity from primitive times."

~

I am not quite sure how a Westerner thinks, but I do think by perceiving my thought, and imagining the results of my actions. But Jung says that this thought of the Westerner is the outcome of a split between the conscious and the unconscious personalities of a person, and while the Westerner tamed the conscious side, the unconscious remained barbarous. He adds that this is the reason why inspite of being technologically superior and scientifically advanced, the Occident can commit ferocious atrocities on human life. The Indian thought in comparison comes from having a union of the conscious and the unconscious sides, and his view of life is wholesome.

Jung also warns of the collapse of Eastern culture in "The Holy Men of India". This section on pages 184-6 of the book reads much like high school essays on the ill effects of Western life, but is one of the most relevant part of Jung's observations on the Orient:

~

"The Eastern peoples are threatened with a rapid collapse of their spiritual values, and what replaces them cannot always be counted among the best that the Western Civilization has produced. From this point of view, one could regard Ramakrishna and Shri Ramana as modern prophets, who play the same compensatory role in relation to their people as that of the Old Testament prophets in relation to the "unfaithful" children of Israel. Not only do they exhort their compatriots to remember their thousand year old spiritual culture, they actually embody it and thus serve as an impressive warning, lest the demands of the soul be forgotten amid the novelties of Western civilization with its materialistic technology and commercial acquisitiveness. The breathless drive for power and aggrandizement in the political, social, and intellectual sphere, gnawing at the soul of the Westerner with apparently insatiable greed, is spreading irresistibly in the East and threatens to have incalculable consequences. --- snip --- The externalization of life turns to incurable suffering, because no one can understand why he should suffer from himself. No one wonders at this insatiability, but regards it as his lawful right, never thinking that the one-sidedness of this psychic diet leads in the end to the gravest disturbances of equilibrium. That is the sickness of Western Man, and he will not rest until he has infected the whole world with his own greedy restlessness. "

~

Jung is greatly influenced by Ramana Maharishi to whom he had been introduced by Heinrich Zimmer through this book. Zimmer seems to be a bigger enthusiast on India, whom we will explore later if time and resources permit. Jung feels that solving the above problem of Western Culture can be done through a study of the East.

~

" The wisdom and mysticism of the East have, therefore, very much to say to us, even when they speak their own inimitable language. They serve to remind us that we in our culture possess something similar, which we have already forgotten, and to direct our attention to the fate of the inner man, which we set aside as trifling and teaching of Shri Ramana are of significance not only for India, but for the West too. They are more than a document humain: they are a warning message to a humanity which threatens to lose itself in unconsciousness and anarchy. It is perhaps, in the deeper sense, no accident that Heinrich Zimmer's last book should leave us as a testament, the life work of a modern Indian prophet who exemplifies so impressively the problem of psychic transformation"

~


On the above, anything that becomes a positive feedback loop will keep growing larger, until it burns out the resources and gets destroyed on its own. The solution to such a problem is for us to remove the causative factors before the burn out time arrives or device an inhibiting mechanism that converts it into a negative feedback control system and makes our culture of today arrive at an equilibrium. The path that Western Culture has put us on and it itself is on is a positive feedback cycle. At some point, this has to end or it will end us. The destruction of today's culture of never ending desire and greed is not only a moral problem, but is proven to be similar to problems in science and biology as well and it will be no surprise if it goes in a similar fashion.

How to solve the problem?

I do not know yet. Perhaps the awareness that this is wrong and needs to be corrected is sufficient to satiate today's desires. Perhaps more is required? To answer that must be one of the objectives of this blog.

A little bit of Machiavelli for the Hindu mind.

Serving the country at any cost is a vital Hindu thought, and several Hindu sages have spoken of it in different eras. But most of us assume it is about fighting on the day of war, serving the poor and so on. Indeed it is all that, but it is also about pre-planning for existential threats, for which few have any regard for. It is impossible to make a majority of people think in this fashion, because many people would look at the current strength of the Indian state and think that it has bright prospects and will keep going from one strength to another. What we need for the country to effect it into policy, is a critical mass of people having strategic consciousness and the ability to look ahead of their immediate needs. The pre-planning for national security involves among other things, peering into a competitor's mind and read his literature plus understand the foundations of his thought. Here's a post for the security conscious minority, a minority that will always be treated as social outcasts of a particular kind if they dare open their mouth among the majority, by laws that have little empirical basis.

Following is an excerpt from Machiavelli's "The Prince" which is considered one of his best pieces and is widely used in many places to determine foreign policy. It might very well be useful to determine our foreign policy too. I advise reading all of his classics. Most of them are almost free.

(Warning: If you're thinking that the Indian Subcontinent consists of only the Indian State, you can leave the post now. If you're thinking it is still a bunch of states that deserve to be united in favor of the most powerful state, you are my kind.)

From Ch. 3 Mixed Principalities:

-----

Moreover, a prince who occupies a province which, as previously described, differs from his own, must become the leader and defender of the less powerful neighboring states and seek to weaken the more powerful among them. He must also be on guard lest by any chance a foreigner equal to him in power should enter them. Such an event always comes about through the help of discontented inhabitants who willingly admit a foreign power either through excessive ambition or through fear, as was the case with the Etolians, who admitted the Romans into Greece. So, it was also with every province that the Romans entered, they were brought in by the inhabitants themselves. It is in the nature of things that as soon as a powerful foreigner enters a province, all the weaker powers in it will become his allies through envy of those who have been ruling over them. This is so true that, with respect to minor powers, the invader need do nothing at all to win them, for they will all willingly merge in the state which he has acquired. He has but to see to it that they do not gain too much strength and authority. With his own forces and their support, he can very early reduce the stronger powers and then become arbiter of the entire province. Any ruler who does not succeed in doing this will soon loose what he has won, or so long as he does manage to hold it, will have a host of difficulties and annoyances. The Romans very carefully observed this policy in the provinces they conquered. They sent out colonies; they protected the lesser powers without increasing their strength; they reduced those who were strong, and they did not permit powerful foreigners to gain a footing. Their conduct in Greece will suffice as an example: there the Romans protected the Achaeans and the Etolians, reduced the kingdom of the Macedonians, and expelled Antiochus. Nor did they ever reward the Achaeans and the Etolians by allowing them to enlarge their states, or allow Philip to persuade them to become his friends until they had weakened him. Nor did the power of Antiochus ever induce them to permit his keeping any part of Greece. In this instance the Romans did everything that wise princes should do who must have regard not only for existing disorders but for future ones as well, avoiding them with all possible diligence.

-----

If you've been following current trends in India's geopolitics, then as far as the Indian subcontinent is concerned, all the above actors are in place. What was the traditional reach of the Indian subcontinent, comprising of states - Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan and as some say, even Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and some parts of modern day Iran, are all still splintered as was the case at the end of the Maurya Dynasty. Elsewhere in "The Prince", Machiavelli makes a point that a splintered people will be easy to conquer. A new wave of imperialism awaits us as the pressure applied on the rump state of India increases from all these sides and as the balance of military power shifts steadily from the Indian state onto the regions in its vicinities. We have missed out on the maneuvering phase of the enemy. Luckily, we have a democracy, and what an individual can do is to get informed, get others informed, vote for and give feedback to parties and people that are most security conscious. If there is any absence of such people, you have the opportunity to join the system and bring the change you wish. At the bare minimum, we can wish to enhance the military power of the Indian state, and keep the balance of military in our favor. Uniting with the lost states will happen if they happen to discover their roots at a later time, or the rising un-affordability of raising a modern military makes them fall within our ambit as autonomous states.

Defining power in Schindler's list: A dharmic perspective.

Schindler's list is a 1993 movie about a German businessman Oscar Schindler who goes to Krakow to take advantage of people thrust into a Jewish ghetto. He first begins to use the Jews as laborers for his factories, taking advantage of the mandated lower salaries for Jewish laborers as compared to European ones. (The laborers themselves get nothing, salary is pocketed by the SS) But when he sees what they have to undergo under his fellow Germans, he is moved and sets to right his wrongs.

There is a conversation that he holds between a German SS officer Amon Goth in the second half of the movie over a round of drinks. Goth gets drunk easily while Schindler remains sober. The following ensues:

(Goth collapses while trying to sit in a chair.. )

Schindler: Why do you drink so much? Your liver is going to explode... like a hand grenade.

Goth: You know, when I look at you.. I watch you (gasping).. you're never drunk. Oh that's .. that's real control. Control is power.. that's power.

Schindler: Is that why they fear us?

Goth: (inaudible) We kill them that is why they fear us..

Schindler: They fear us because we have the power to kill arbitrarily. When a man commits a crime, we should know that if we haven't killed anybody, we feel good. When we kill him ourselves, we feel even better. That is not power though,.. that's justice. It's different than power. Power is when we have every justification to kill, and we don't.

Goth: You think that's power?

(Schindler coming closer to Goth..)

Schindler: That's what the emperors had. When a man stole something, he's brought before the emperor. He throws himself on the ground and begs for mercy. He knows he's going to die. And the emperor pardons him. He's a worthless man, he lets him go.

Goth: I think you are drunk.

Schindler: That's power. That is power.

Dharmic Perspective: Two aspects of power are thus mentioned in the conversation. One aspect of power comes straight from the left brain (the logical brain). That is of control. Logically thinking, controlling a person's actions is power. And that control is maintained by a strict law and order, a top down enforcement of power. The pinnacle of the power pyramid controls the layer below it, that layer controls the succeeding layer and so on till at the bottom of the pyramid, the aam junta is controlled. The SS officer in the above conversation supports this view of power.

But, if we tweak the right brain a bit and be more creative with the interpretation of power, then there are other, more subtle, more humane and more effective ways of projecting power. That is shown in the example given by Oscar Schindler. An emperor of a kingdom has all the military might and executive control that he can have. He can execute a criminal if he wishes to. But, if the criminal has realized his blunder, and if the king releases him, there is hope that the criminal can improve. A life is saved thus, and life is precious. This is also a type of control, but of an indirect kind, which coerces the people to improve themselves rather than they being directed to from above.

This is a rare dharmic perspective that is hardly found in movies these days. Hats off to Steven Spielberg.