Carl Jung : Letters to Oppenheimer, Suzuki and Baur-Celio

Carl Jung

Letters 1906-1950

To Albert Oppenheimer

Dear Herr Oppenheimer, 10 O ctober 1933

Not being a prophet, it is impossible for me to predict where the world is going to. But I know from my own experience of very many individuals of our time that a very definite instinctive tendency is at work to bring them back to consciousness of themselves. The catastrophe of the World War is no doubt responsible for this. What happens to the individual also happens to nations after a time, by a process of natural summation. The economic crisis operates as a contributory causative factor. Nations will become more and more entrenched in their idiosyncrasies and we may expect an increase in nationalism everywhere. Contrary to the rational expectation of worldwide understanding, the individuality of each nation is going to be built up for a long time to come. Economic hardship makes people egoistic as well as increasing mistrust between them.

It is clear that civilization, if not exactly threatened, is being held up in its advance. This is to be welcomed in that our advance has been much too rapid for the real man, which is why we have become lopsidedly intellectualistic and rationalistic and have quite forgotten that there are other factors which cannot be influenced by a onetrack rational intellect. Hence we see on all sides a mystic emotionality flaring up, which had been declared extinguished ever since the Middle Ages. It fares with nations as with the individual : if he grows too high in the air his roots go down too deep, which means that however fast he progresses he will after a time be overtaken by his own shadow, where he will find plenty of work to do on himself at home. In the individual one calls it a conflict, in the nation it’s a civil war or revolution.

I think the continuing divisions and upheavals will gradually lead to a state of balance which will form the basis for a reconstruction. But I think the phase of disintegration will last at least several decades more. I see no special social or political gain for our generation

but an all the greater spiritual one. This, of course, is not identical with what used to be called the march of civilization.

Yours sincerely, c . g . jung

*

To Daisetz T. Suzuki

Dear Professor Suzuki,

22 September 1933

Being an admirer of your former work on Zen Buddhism, it has been a very great pleasure indeed to receive such a precious gift as your Essays in Ze n Buddhism , Second Series.

Zen is a true goldmine for the needs of the Western “psychologist.” Formerly one would have called such a man a philosopher, but as you know, philosophy with us has been usurped by the philosophical departments of universities and thus removed from life. But as souls could not be removed to the shelves of an academic science, people who by profession have to be busy with human souls, as for instance a nerve doctor like myself, have to concoct a philosophy of their own and they have to call it psychology for the reasons above mentioned. My acquaintance with the classical works of the Far East has given me no end of support in my psychological endeavours. Thus I feel deeply obliged to you for your kind and generous gift.

Most sincerely yours, c . g . jung

*

[According to a communication from Prof. Baur-Celio, this letter reached him in the form reproduced here, without beginning or end. It is in answer to the question whether Ju n g possessed any “ secret know ledge” surpassing his written formulations.]

To Bernhard Baur-Celio

30 January 1934

I cannot leave your “ question of conscience” unanswered. Obviously I speak only of what I know and what can be verified. I don’t want to addle anybody’s brains with my subjective conjectures. Beyond that I have had experiences which are, so to speak, “ineffable,” “secret” because they can never be told properly and because nobody can understand them (I don’t know whether I have even approximately understood them myself), “dangerous” because 99% of humanity would declare I was mad if they heard such things from me, “catastrophic” because the prejudices aroused by their telling might block other people’s way to a living and wondrous mystery, “taboo” because they are a [sanctuary] protected by [demons] as faithfully described by Goethe :

Shelter gives deep cave.

Lions around us stray,

Silent and tame they rove,

And sacred honours pay

To the holy shrine of love.

And already too much has been said — my public might be fatally infected by the suspicion of “poetic licence” — that most painful aberration !

Can anyone say “credo” when he stands amidst his experience, when he knows how superfluous “belief” is, "In faith trusting the terrifying apparition” [Goethe, Faust], when he more than just “knows,” when the experience has even pressed him to the wall ?

I don’t want to seduce anyone into believing and thus take his experience from him. I need my mental and physical health in fullest measure to hold out against what people call “peace,” so I don’t like boosting my experiences. But one thing I will tell you: the exploration of the unconscious has in fact and in truth discovered the age-old, timeless way of initiation. Freud’s theory is an apotropaic attempt to block off and protect oneself from the perils of the “long road” ; only a “knight” dares "la queste” and the “aventiure”. Nothing is submerged for ever — that is the terrifying discovery everyone makes who has opened that portal. But the primeval fear is so great that the world is grateful to Freud for having proved “scientifically” (what a bastard o f a science!) that one has seen nothing behind it.

Now it is not merely my “credo” but the greatest and most incisive experience of my life that this door, a highly inconspicuous side-door on an unsuspicious-looking and easily overlooked footpath — narrow and indistinct because only a few have set foot on it — leads to the secret of transformation and renewal.

Intrate per angustam portam.

Quia lata porta et spatiosa via est,

quae ducit ad perditionem,

Et multi sunt qui intrant per earn.

Ouam angusta porta et arcta via est,

quae ducit ad vitam ,

Et pauci sunt qui in veniunt earn!

Attendite a falsis prophetis qui veniunt

ad vos in vestim entis ovium—

intrinsecus autem sunt lupi rapaces.

[“Enter through the narrow gate.

For wide is the gate and broad is the road

that leads to destruction,

and many enter through it.

But small is the gate and narrow

the road that leads to life,

and only a few find it.

“Watch out for false prophets.

They come to you in sheep’s clothing,

but inwardly they are ferocious wolves."

Matthew 7 : 13 - 15]

Now you will understand why I prefer to say “ scio” and not “ credo” — because I don't want to act mysterious. But it would infallibly look as though I were acting mysterious if I spoke of a real, living mystery. One is mysterious when one speaks of a real mystery. Therefore better not speak of it in order to avoid that evil and confusing look. Like all

real life it is a voyage between Scylla and Charybdis.