East and West: The Mystic and The Revolutionary

Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
352
Likes
471
#1
So I just finished writing an 8,500 word treatise on applying certain Jungian psychoanalytic concepts in a kind of "philosophical" sense to the whole notion of Eastern and Western (Abrahamic) mentality and spirituality (yeah, that's the kind of thing I do for fun...).

PDF is here: https://docdro.id/sDaoFdw

TLDR is something like:
  • Jung had concept of Introversion and Extroversion (a little different to their common definition)
  • There are different archetypes corresponding to these two tendencies, the highest in the Introverted sense being the Mystic and in the Extroverted the Revolutionary
  • Eastern and Western (Abrahamic) energies correspond with Introversion and Extroversion
  • The Abrahamic prophets are spiritual revolutionaries, while the Eastern are Sages.
  • The Abrahamic philosophy is based on interpretation of scripture, while the Eastern scriptures are themselves detailed philosophical expositions
  • More coherent religious philosophy is found on the Eastern side, resolving certain problems which cannot be resolved within Abrahamic doctrines, while the Abrahamic prophets have revolutionary energy.
  • The Eastern teachings tend to ignore the fact of oppression and social problems, dismissing them as "Karma" when in fact Karma is more complex than this (as we see through looking at things from the Abrahamic perspective).
  • Each teaching can help to shed light on the other, synthesis is necessary
 





Last edited:
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
954
Likes
741
#3
So I just finished writing an 8,500 word treatise on applying certain Jungian psychoanalytic concepts in a kind of "philosophical" sense to the whole notion of Eastern and Western (Abrahamic) mentality and spirituality (yeah, that's the kind of thing I do for fun...).

PDF is here: https://docdro.id/sDaoFdw

TLDR is something like:
  • Jung had concept of Introversion and Extroversion (a little different to their common definition)
  • There are different archetypes corresponding to these two tendencies, the highest in the Introverted sense being the Mystic and in the Extroverted the Revolutionary
  • Eastern and Western (Abrahamic) energies correspond with Introversion and Extroversion
  • The Abrahamic prophets are spiritual revolutionaries, while the Eastern are Sages.
  • The Abrahamic philosophy is based on interpretation of scripture, while the Eastern scriptures are themselves detailed philosophical expositions
  • More coherent religious philosophy is found on the Eastern side, resolving certain problems which cannot be resolved within Abrahamic doctrines, while the Abrahamic prophets have revolutionary energy.
  • The Eastern teachings tend to ignore the fact of oppression and social problems, dismissing them as "Karma" when in fact Karma is more complex than this (as we see through looking at things from the Abrahamic perspective).
  • Each teaching can help to shed light on the other, synthesis is necessary
I really enjoyed reading this and appreciate you sharing it. The characterization between introversion and extroversion is a really interesting one that I haven't thought about in those terms specifically. It is true that in the nature of the Abrahamic prophets there is a direct sense of social change (embodied equally between Moses, Jesus and Muhammad). I think this also relates to the nature of the political-consciousness of the three Abrahamic religions. Whether left-leaning or right-leaning, it always seems to have some direct connection with the politics of the followers of the Abrahamic religions.
The Dharmic/Eastern traditions however do in fact have a more secluded sense of value placed on social change of the same manner. It is true that it does lead to lingering problems that don't get solved but then it seems that both sides have this but in completely different areas.
I think there is further reflection there in the tendencies for the Abrahamic religions to either be very afraid of death (feeding further extroverted sensitivities of the outside environment) or to be rather suicidal, in the manner of martyrdom.
On the side of Dharmic traditions however, there seems to be more apathy towards death in the sense that it is treated as just a passing quality of life.
Also, 'the other' (or Anima) is treated very differently comparing Abrahamic to Dharmic. In the Abrahamic religions, the self in the Abrahamic traditions seems missing without it's opposite half. Whereas in the Dharmic traditions it's more seen as non-separate, in the sense that both are Brahman on the deeper level, so it is not perceived as the reunion of separation in the same Abrahamic sense. In this way Adam/Eve is like a polar opposite from Shiva/Shakti, even though both represent a sexual and cosmic unity in their deepest sense.
However at the same time the subject/environment relationship seems to blur particularly over the transitory nature of this world, as believe in both religious traditions. In the Dharmic traditions it generally results in more pacifism and removal of identifying oneself with surroundings, whereas in the Abrahamic religions it, regretfully, happens to lead to more cases of hatred of the world and a general denial of living life (in a way that is like protesting).
On texts, you're generally correct although there clearly is a lot of ambiguity between both. However the nature of Dharmic/eastern texts tends to be more instructive and prescriptive rather than even historical or declaratory, whereas the Abrahamic texts are often conceived of in the manner of being 'divine decree' and of presenting the divine order.
When it comes to things like dreams and prophecies though we get more ambiguity because dreams play a big role in both religions and their revelatory power is recognized by both.

In general I find it hard to disagree with much (if anything) of what you say here, you've got some sharp and accurate observations :)
 





Last edited: