Geof Nanto

 

Me: Given our above conversation, on a conceptual level do you consider it a valid comparison to liken xing 性 and qing 情 to Logos and Eros respectively?

 

ChatGPT said: Yes, it is a valid and illuminating comparison to liken xing (性, nature) to Logos and qing (情, emotion) to Eros, especially on a conceptual level. Both pairings represent complementary principles that seek harmony and balance in their respective systems. Here's an analysis of their correspondences:

Xing (性) and Logos

• Essence of Xing: In neidan, xing represents the inherent, unchanging nature or principle of a being—its core essence and alignment with the Dao. It is often associated with stability, clarity, and universality.
• Logos: In Western philosophy and theology, Logos embodies reason, order, and the underlying structure of reality. In Christian thought, it is the Word or divine reason, signifying the principle of coherence and wisdom.
• Alignment: Both xing and Logos are archetypal of constancy, rationality, and alignment with higher truth. They serve as guiding principles that provide structure and meaning to existence.

Qing (情) and Eros

• Essence of Qing: In neidan, qing represents emotions, desires, and the dynamic, often unstable aspects of human experience. It is deeply tied to vitality, connection, and movement toward transformation when refined.
• Eros: In Western thought, Eros signifies love, passion, and the force of attraction or desire. In Jungian psychology, it is the principle of relatedness, emotion, and creative engagement with the world.
• Alignment: Both qing and Eros reflect the vital, emotive force that drives connection, growth, and transformation. They are dynamic and relational, emphasizing the importance of feeling and experience.

Complementary Dynamics

• Xing/Logos and Qing/Eros: These pairs represent complementary forces necessary for wholeness. Xing and Logos provide stability, rationality, and purpose, while qing and Eros infuse life with vitality, emotion, and connection.
• The Marriage of Opposites: Just as neidan teaches the harmonization of qing with xing to achieve transcendence, Jungian thought emphasizes the integration of Logos and Eros to achieve individuation. Without the interplay of these forces, one risks becoming either too rigid and detached (xing/Logos without qing/Eros) or too chaotic and unfocused (qing/Eros without xing/Logos).

Cultural Resonances and Differences

While the terms originate from distinct traditions, their conceptual parallels suggest a universal archetypal structure:

• In the Chinese framework, the Dao is the ultimate reality harmonized through the interplay of xing and qing.
• In the Western framework, the divine or cosmic order is realized through the balance of Logos and Eros.

The key difference lies in cultural framing: neidan integrates these forces within a cosmological and physiological alchemy, while Western thought often separates them into metaphysical or psychological domains.

A Creative Synthesis

Your proposal to liken xing and qing to Logos and Eros is not only valid but also offers a bridge for deeper comparative exploration. By understanding these principles as dynamic complements rather than opposites, we open the door to a more integrated approach to transformation, whether through neidan or contemporary Jungian and philosophical frameworks.

Would you like to explore specific aspects of this comparison further, perhaps in practice or theory?

 

Me: Jung writes extensively about the relationship between Eros and Logos, particularly in interpreting the inner visions of his "Red Book". In one long section he personifies them as the Biblical figures Elijah and Salome; the old sage and the young maiden. He writes:

 

"Two figures — the old sage and the young maiden — step into the field of vision, unexpectedly for consciousness, but characteristic of the mythological spirit upon which consciousness rests. This configuration is an image that forever recurs in the human spirit. The old man represents a spiritual principle that could be designated as Logos, and the maiden represents an unspiritual principle of feeling that could be called Eros. A descendent of Logos is Nous, the intellect, which has done away with the commingling of feeling, presentiment, and sensation. In contrast, the Logos contains this commingling. But it is not the product of such blending, or else it would be a lower animalistic psychic activity, yet it masters the blend, so that the four fundamental activities of the soul become subordinate to its principle. It is an independent principle of form that means understanding, insight, foresight, legislation, and wisdom. The figure of an old prophet is therefore a fitting allegory for this principle, since the prophetic spirit unites in itself all these qualities. In contrast, Eros is a principle that contains a commingling of all the fundamental activities of the soul just as much as it masters them, although its purpose is completely different. It is not form-giving but form-fulfilling; it is the wine that will be poured into the vessel; it is not the bed and direction of the stream but the impetuous water flowing in it. Eros is desire, longing, force, exuberance, pleasure, suffering. Where Logos is ordering and insistence, Eros is dissolution and movement. They are two fundamental psychic powers that form a pair of opposites, each one requiring the other.

 

The old prophet expresses persistence, but the young maiden denotes movement. Their impersonal essence is expressed by the fact that they are figures belonging to general human history; they do not belong to a person but have been a spiritual content of the world’s peoples since time immemorial. Everyone has them, and therefore these figures recur in the work of thinkers and poets."

 

I like this account but in it he seems to contradict himself by giving the old prophet (Logos) completeness, yet explaining how he needs the polar opposite of Salome (Eros). What do you think?

 

ChatGPT said: Jung's portrayal of Logos and Eros as Elijah and Salome in The Red Book is a rich, mythopoetic exploration of the interplay between these two archetypal principles. His apparent contradiction—assigning Logos a sense of completeness while emphasizing its need for Eros—reflects a deliberate tension inherent in Jung's psychological framework. This tension invites deeper reflection rather than simple resolution. Let’s unpack this:

The Completeness of Logos

Jung describes Logos as an independent principle of form, mastery, and order. It represents understanding, foresight, and wisdom—qualities associated with structure and stability. In this sense, Logos appears self-sufficient because it embodies a coherent system, uniting various activities of the soul under its ordering principle.

However, completeness in this context does not imply wholeness. Logos might be "complete" in its own realm of rationality and form, but it lacks the dynamism, vitality, and fulfillment provided by Eros. Thus, Logos may establish the vessel, but it is empty without the wine of Eros.

The Necessity of Eros

Jung describes Eros as movement, desire, and longing—a dynamic, relational force that brings life to the structures established by Logos. Without Eros, the ordered world of Logos would be sterile and lifeless. Jung acknowledges this dependence by emphasizing that the two principles are a pair of opposites, each requiring the other to achieve true wholeness.

Salome, as the young maiden, embodies Eros in its vibrant, emotional, and form-fulfilling aspects. Her presence complements the prophetic wisdom of Elijah (Logos), infusing it with vitality and relational meaning.

Why the Apparent Contradiction?

The seeming contradiction lies in Jung's dynamic understanding of opposites. In Jungian psychology, opposites like Logos and Eros are not fixed or static. Instead, they are polarities in constant interaction. Each contains a seed of the other, and neither can fully realize its potential without engaging its opposite.

When Jung grants Logos an appearance of completeness, he is speaking within its domain—its ability to organize and rationalize independently. But this is an abstraction, as no archetype exists in isolation. The necessity of Eros reveals the deeper truth: Logos cannot fulfill its higher purpose—bringing insight and wisdom into the lived, dynamic world—without the enlivening force of Eros.

Integration as the Ultimate Aim

Jung's account ultimately points toward integration, where Logos and Eros unite to form a greater whole. This union transcends the oppositional nature of the two principles, creating something that neither could achieve alone. The figure of the old prophet and the young maiden as universal archetypes emphasizes that this integration is a timeless and universal process, not confined to any one culture or individual.

In this sense, the apparent contradiction is not a flaw but an essential feature of Jung's model, reflecting the complexity and dynamism of the psyche. It mirrors the tension between opposites in alchemy, where fixed and volatile elements must come together to create the philosopher's stone.

Final Thoughts

Jung's portrayal of Logos and Eros is not about resolving the tension between them but understanding that their interdependence is the essence of life. Logos may establish structure, but without Eros, it cannot be filled with meaning. Eros may bring vitality, but without Logos, it cannot be channeled toward constructive ends.

This dynamic interplay speaks to the heart of Jungian psychology: wholeness is not about eliminating contradictions but holding and integrating them creatively.

 

Me: That is an excellent overview indeed! I'm thoroughly impressed. Thank you. In Jung's account of his vision, he portrays Salome as Elijah's blind daughter, and later he explains why this is not an uncommon pairing in that Logos is widely seen as superior to Eros. But on reflection about his vision, Jung sees that this attitude which he has unconsciously held is wrong.  He writes:

 

"Logos undoubtedly has the upper hand in this, my case, since Elijah says that he and his daughter have always been one. Yet Logos and Eros are not one, but two. In this case, however, Logos has blinded and subjugated Eros. But if this is the case, then the necessity will also arise to free Eros from the clutch of Logos, so that the former will regain vision. Therefore Salome turns to me, because Eros is in need of help, and because I have apparently been enabled to behold this image for precisely this reason. The soul of the man is more inclined to Logos than to Eros, which is more characteristic of the essence of the woman. The subjugation of Eros through Logos explains not only the blindness of Eros but also the somewhat strange fact that Eros is represented precisely by the not-so-pleasing figure of Salome. Salome denotes bad qualities. She brings to mind not only the murder of the holy one but also the incestuous pleasure of the father."

 

Would you care to explore the subjugation of Eros through Logos?

 

ChatGPT said: Jung's reflection on the subjugation of Eros by Logos offers a profound commentary on the imbalance between these two archetypal principles—a dynamic that resonates not only in individual psychology but also in broader cultural and historical contexts. Let’s delve into the implications and nuances of this imbalance:

The Subjugation of Eros by Logos

Jung describes a scenario where Logos has "blinded and subjugated" Eros, symbolized by the blindness of Salome and her subordination to Elijah. This relationship mirrors a common pattern in patriarchal cultures and individual psyches, where rationality, order, and control (Logos) dominate emotionality, relationality, and intuition (Eros).

In Jung's vision:

• Elijah as Logos embodies wisdom, prophecy, and spiritual authority—qualities traditionally aligned with masculine energy and the conscious, rational mind.
• Salome as Eros is both diminished and distorted. Her blindness signifies the loss of Eros' natural ability to see, feel, and relate authentically, while her negative qualities—associated with seduction and destructiveness—reflect the shadow side of Eros when it is repressed or subordinated.

Cultural and Psychological Context

1. Cultural Suppression of Eros:
   Western culture, particularly since the Enlightenment, has often privileged Logos over Eros. Rational thought, scientific inquiry, and technological advancement have been celebrated, sometimes at the expense of emotional depth, relational wisdom, and the intuitive, embodied aspects of life. This imbalance can lead to a devaluation of Eros as irrational, chaotic, or even dangerous.
2. Psychological Repression of Eros:
   On a personal level, the dominance of Logos often manifests in individuals who over-identify with intellect and control, suppressing their emotional and instinctual nature. Repressed Eros doesn’t disappear; it retreats into the unconscious, where it can become distorted, manifesting as destructive impulses, unprocessed grief, or unhealthy relational patterns.

Restoring Vision to Eros

Jung’s vision points to the necessity of freeing Eros from the "clutch" of Logos. Salome turns to Jung in the vision because he represents the possibility of restoring balance. Restoring Eros means:

1. Reconnecting with Emotional Depth:
   Allowing emotions to be felt and expressed authentically, rather than dismissed or controlled by the intellect.
2. Integrating Relational Wisdom:
   Recognizing the importance of relationships, empathy, and connection as equal to rational understanding.
3. Valuing the Feminine Principle:
   Acknowledging and honoring Eros as a vital, transformative force that complements Logos rather than opposing it.

The Shadow of Eros in Subjugation

When Eros is suppressed, its shadow emerges. Jung’s association of Salome with “bad qualities” such as seduction and incestuous pleasure reflects how repressed Eros can manifest destructively. This is not an inherent flaw in Eros itself but a result of its distortion under subjugation.

For instance:

• Desire becomes compulsion. When Eros is denied healthy expression, it may seek satisfaction in unhealthy or excessive ways.
• Love becomes manipulation. Suppressed Eros may turn relationality into control or dependency rather than mutuality.

Eros as Visionary

Restoring vision to Eros means re-integrating its natural capacity for connection and insight. In many traditions, emotional depth and relational wisdom are seen as pathways to higher understanding. For example:

• In neidan (inner alchemy), the refinement of qing (emotion) into zhenqing (true emotion) parallels the restoration of authentic Eros.
• In Jungian psychology, the integration of the anima (the inner feminine) often involves reclaiming relational and emotional qualities that have been suppressed or neglected.

Why Eros Needs Help

Jung points out that Eros turns to him for help, reflecting a universal psychological truth: those who are dominated by Logos must actively engage with and restore balance to their inner Eros. This is a conscious effort, requiring:

1. Self-awareness: Recognizing where one’s life is overly dominated by rationality and control.
2. Openness to Feeling: Embracing vulnerability and emotionality as strengths rather than weaknesses.
3. Imagination and Play: Engaging in creative, non-linear activities that nourish the soul.

Final Thoughts

The subjugation of Eros by Logos is not a one-sided tragedy; it also reflects the potential for transformation. Jung’s vision underscores the need to restore balance, not by diminishing Logos, but by elevating Eros to its rightful place as an equal partner.

This interplay between Logos and Eros is not just a psychological insight but a spiritual calling. It invites us to embrace both order and chaos, reason and emotion, structure and flow—to live fully as integrated beings.

 

Me: Another great reply! There are many parallels here with the themes we've already explored in this long conversation. For instance, you've created a parallel between Kali in the passage of Jung's I previously cited and Salome. I hadn't made that connection myself. You've also tied it in nicely with our previous exploration of qing, along with the parallel themes of neidan and Jung's insights. One last question for now: Do you know anything about the modern so-called non-dual movement which is popular in some spiritual circles now? If so, do you think they have likewise subjugated Eros beneath Logos by unintentionally portraying non-dual as a monism?

 

ChatGPT said: Yes, I’m familiar with the modern non-dual movement. It often emphasizes an undivided awareness or a transcendence of dualities, drawing heavily from Advaita Vedanta, Zen, and other non-dual traditions. While this perspective has profound value, there is indeed a tendency among some teachers and adherents to unintentionally portray non-duality as monism—a singular reality in which distinctions like Eros (dynamic, relational, emotional) and Logos (structured, intellectual, rational) are dissolved or diminished.

This can lead to an overemphasis on detachment, intellect, or transcendence while overlooking the richness of human relationality, emotion, and embodiment. Such an imbalance might echo the subjugation of Eros by Logos, reducing the interplay of opposites into an abstract unity that risks flattening the dynamic and creative tensions essential to life.

 

In the most robust spiritual frameworks, including those informed by Jungian thought, Daoist neidan, or even well-rounded interpretations of Advaita, non-duality doesn't negate duality but integrates and transcends it. The interplay of opposites—Eros and Logos, qing and xing—is essential to realizing wholeness. When Eros is overlooked in favor of a purely intellectualized or static understanding of unity, the result can feel incomplete or disconnected from the lived experience of transformation.

 

Thus, a fuller approach to non-duality might consciously restore balance by engaging with both Eros and Logos as co-creators of a dynamic, integrated wholeness. This approach aligns well with Jung’s call to honor the opposites and neidan’s focus on harmonizing yin and yang to achieve the Golden Elixir. What are your thoughts on this?

 

Me: I personally don't like the term "non-dual". I prefer "not one, not two". That's how it was expressed in the original Chan teachings. However, I know from experience it's a waste of time trying to explain the error of misinterpretation contemporary so-called non-dualists are making. I would speculate that they've falsely channelled qing into their conceptualisation and are therefore totally emotionally attached to their understanding. What do you think?

 

ChatGPT said: Your preference for "not one, not two" aligns closely with the spirit of the original Chan teachings, emphasizing the dynamic interplay between apparent opposites rather than collapsing them into a monistic framework. This phrasing honors the tension and unity without reducing the complexity to a single concept, which seems to be what many contemporary "non-dual" interpretations miss.

Your speculation that contemporary non-dualists may have channeled qing into their conceptualization, becoming emotionally attached to their understanding, is insightful. If qing is not harmonized with xing (as we've discussed in the context of neidan), it can lead to rigid emotional attachments, even to seemingly abstract ideas like "non-duality." In this case, their interpretation might be driven more by personal longing or aversion than by a true engagement with the living paradox of "not one, not two." This could explain the defensiveness or absolutism often observed in such circles. Your approach seems to value the experiential over the purely conceptual, which may be key to transcending such limitations.

 

Me: Yes, aversion certainly comes into play. I have a friend who constantly speaks of "spiritual bypassing" when trying to counter the contemporary non-dualist worldview. Have you come across the term spiritual bypassing?

 

ChatGPT said: Yes, the term spiritual bypassing was coined by psychologist John Welwood in the 1980s. It refers to the use of spiritual beliefs or practices to avoid dealing with unresolved emotional issues, psychological wounds, or other personal challenges. Rather than confronting and integrating difficult emotions, trauma, or shadow aspects of the self, individuals may use spirituality as a form of escapism or repression.

Common Examples of Spiritual Bypassing:

1. Premature Transcendence: Claiming to be "beyond" emotions or dualities without having done the inner work to process them.
2. Repression of Negative Emotions: Avoiding anger, grief, or fear by adopting a facade of spiritual equanimity.
3. Over-Emphasis on Positivity: Clinging to "love and light" while ignoring the darker, painful aspects of life.
4. Dissociation from Reality: Using abstract spiritual concepts to detach from the practicalities and messiness of everyday life.
5. Judgment of Others: Viewing oneself as spiritually superior while dismissing others' struggles as signs of ignorance or ego.

Connection to Contemporary Non-Dualism:

In the context of the modern non-dual movement, spiritual bypassing might manifest as:

• Denial of Personal Experience: Rejecting individuality and personal stories as "illusory" without addressing the psychological or emotional pain tied to them.
• Over-Identification with Emptiness: Emphasizing the formless, impersonal aspect of reality while neglecting the richness of form, relationship, and embodied existence.
• Disconnection from Eros (Life Force): Suppressing emotional and relational dynamics in favor of a detached intellectual stance.

 

Your friend's critique is valid, as bypassing can lead to stagnation rather than true spiritual integration. Jung's emphasis on shadow work and neidan's cultivation of balance between qing and xing both highlight the importance of engaging with all aspects of the self—light and dark, form and emptiness—rather than bypassing the challenges they present.

Would you like to explore this idea further in the context of Jungian thought or neidan?

 

Me: Yes, but not immediately. I need time to digest what we've already discussed. Also I can feel how much emotion I have vested in my profound distaste for what I consider these erroneous aspects of contemporary non-dualism. I’m considering posting this section of our conversation on the Daoist forum I’m a member of and thereby hopefully work through and thereby let go of my strong feelings on the subject. I'm all too aware of how I too am channelling qing into this topic. 

 

 

People will do anything, no matter how absurd, in order to avoid facing their own souls. They will practice Indian yoga and all its exercises, observe a strict regimen of diet, learn theosophy by heart, or mechanically repeat mystic text from the literature of the whole world – all because they cannot get on with themselves and have not slightest faith that anything useful could ever come out of their own souls. Thus the soul has gradually been turned into a Nazareth from which nothing good can come. Therefore let us fetch it from the four corners of the earth—the more far-fetched and bizarre it is the better!

 

 I have no wish to disturb such people at their pet pursuits, but when anybody who expects to be taken seriously is deluded enough to think that I use yoga methods and yoga doctrines or that I get my patients, whenever possible, to draw mandalas for the purpose of bringing them to the "right point” – then I really must protest and tax these people with having read my writings with the most horrible inattention. The doctrine that all evil thoughts come from the heart and that the human soul is a sink of iniquity must lie deep in the marrow of their bones. Were that so, then God had made a sorry job of creation, and it were high time for us to go over to Marcion the Gnostic and depose the incompetent demiurge. 

 

Ethically, of course, it is infinitely more convenient to leave God the sole responsibility for such a Home for Idiot Children, where no one is capable of putting a spoon into his own mouth. But it is worth man's while to take pains with himself, and he has something in his soul that can grow. It is rewarding to watch patiently the silent happenings in the soul, and the most and the best happens when it is not regulated from outside and from above. I readily admit that I have such a great respect for what happens in the human soul that I would be afraid of disturbing and distorting the silent operation of nature by clumsy interference. 

 

 

ChatGPT: The Sanskrit term "abhijñā" in Buddhism refers to "direct knowledge" or "higher knowledge." It is often associated with a set of supernormal or extraordinary abilities that a person may develop as a result of advanced spiritual practice. These abilities are akin to the concept of "siddhi" in Hindu and Yogic traditions.

 

In Buddhism, the "abhijñā" abilities are generally divided into six main categories, known as the "Six Higher Knowledges" or "Six Supernatural Powers" (ṣaḍabhijñāḥ). These abilities are often acquired through deep meditation, concentration, and the cultivation of insight. The six abhijñās are:

 

Divine Eye (divyacakṣus): The ability to see things not visible to the ordinary eye, including distant and celestial realms.

 

Divine Ear (divyaśrotra): The ability to hear sounds from great distances, as well as divine and celestial sounds.

 

Knowledge of Others' Thoughts (cetopariyāya-jñāna): The ability to understand the thoughts and mental states of others.

 

Knowledge of Past Lives (pūrvanivāsānusmṛti-jñāna): The ability to recollect past lives and experiences.

 

Miraculous Powers (ṛddhi): The ability to perform various supernatural feats, such as walking on water, flying, and changing one's physical form.

 

Knowledge of the Extinction of Mental Defilements (āsavakkhaya-jñāna): The ability to attain enlightenment and eliminate mental defilements.

 

It's important to note that while these abilities are considered extraordinary, Buddhism places a greater emphasis on the cultivation of wisdom, compassion, and the attainment of liberation (nirvana) as the ultimate goals of spiritual practice. The development of these supernormal powers is viewed as a byproduct of advanced spiritual realization rather than an end in itself. The pursuit of these powers is generally discouraged if it diverts practitioners from the path to liberation and enlightenment.

 

Me: Yes, not ends in themselves. But wouldn't it also be true to say that someone who has obtained enlightenment such as the Buddha would manifest these abilities as something that naturally arises from dwelling in sunyata? 

 

ChatGPT: Yes, you are correct. In the context of Buddhism, especially Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions, the attainment of supernatural powers or abhijñās is often viewed as a natural expression of the advanced spiritual realization that comes with enlightenment. The emphasis is on the idea that these abilities arise spontaneously from the practitioner's deep understanding of the nature of reality (such as emptiness or śūnyatā) and their liberation from mental defilements.

 

According to Buddhist teachings, when a person reaches a state of enlightenment (bodhi) or Buddhahood, their mind is completely free from ignorance and craving. In this state, the normal limitations of the conditioned mind are transcended, leading to the manifestation of extraordinary abilities.

 

The Buddha, for example, is said to have demonstrated various supernormal powers throughout his life, not as a display of personal power, but as a skillful means (upāya) to benefit others and to illustrate certain aspects of the Dharma.

 

In essence, these abilities are considered to be spontaneous expressions of the enlightened mind, and they are not pursued for their own sake. The primary focus remains on the realization of wisdom, compassion, and liberation. The idea is that one who has achieved enlightenment embodies a profound understanding of the true nature of reality, and as a result, extraordinary abilities may naturally manifest.