Oneness is a “state of being unified or whole, though comprised of two or more parts.” Carl Jung understood that the Self is the archetype of wholeness (CW 5, 9i, 9ii), meaning that the Self is realized when opposites are unified. The spiritual path of Vedanta understands that the only true Identity is between the individual Self and Ultimate Reality. In Shaivism, the supreme identity is Mahādeva. Shiva is an image and representation of Ultimate Reality, and thus also an image of our potential union with Ultimate Reality. The union between the Self and Ultimate Reality is known as Oneness. In this post, I am going to continue my exploration of various spiritual traditions. I am going to share some passages from the Brahmanda Purana (Chapter 27), a Hindu Sanskrit text. In the story, Shiva makes a strong statement concerning his own nature.
Oneness is defined as a “state of being unified or whole, though comprised of two or more parts.” Oneness is not only a concept, but a potential of the Self. Carl Jung spoke of Self realization in terms of wholeness and integration. Indian spiritual texts speak of the supreme Self (Atman) as One or non-dual.
In becoming aware of the supreme nature of the Self , we are likely to behold the demons and shadows of the individual self. In Indian philosophy, the demon is known to be an image of ignorance and falsehood. Carl Jung believed that an encounter with the demon or monster represented an archetypal stage in the process of individuation. He says, “the initial encounter with the Self casts a dark shadow ahead of time.” In mythic terms the shadow may present itself as a monster, a demon, a darkness or a drought. Here is the full quote from Jung’s Man and His Symbols:
There is a archetypal relation between the God, Self, and trees.
Jung calls the tree of life a “mother symbol” (CW 5, para 321). In the image above, we see Furtmeyer’s Tree of Death and Life. This image represents the paradox inherent in the tree as mother symbol. Anne Baring describes the scene of the image:
“The faces of the two women are identical, and their heads incline away from the central point of the tree in antithetical relationship: Eve, predictably naked, offering to humanity the apple of death, which she is passing on from the serpent; and Mary, predictably clothed, offering the redeeming apple of life. The position of the serpent arising from the not-to-be seen phallus of Adam is presumably less than coincidental. On Eve’s side of the tree lies the grinning skull, while Death waits for her on the right, and on Mary’s side of the tree – the Life side – the cross with the crucified Christ poised as on a branch, himself the fruit of her miraculously intact womb.”
This image is especially significant in that it is not only a “mother symbol”, but shows the profound paradox within the mother image. We here see a duality in the archetypal Mother. Here is Eve as the mother of our fallen state and here is Mary as the mother of redemption. Eve offers the fruit of death; Mary offers the fruit of redemption.
Recently, I have been writing on the aims and instincts of the human soul. Carl Jung speaks of the human soul’s “longing to attain rebirth through a return to the womb, and to become immortal like the sun” (CW5, para. 312). In biblical terms, rebirth is associated with entrance into Jerusalem. Jerusalem is the holy city, an image of the divine mother.
Jung says, “the Old Testament treats the cities of Jerusalem, Babylon, etc. just as if they were women” (para 303). While Jerusalem is an image of the holy mother, Babylon is the unholy mother. In Jung’s words: “Babylon is the symbol of the Terrible Mother” (Jung, para 315). In Revelation 17 it is written: