- The So-Called “Unconscious” Does Not Exist
Carl Gustav Jung writes about the “unconscious” and the “collective unconscious”. What does the esoteric philosophy say about that?
It’s simple: precisely because universal consciousness is universal, it has no limits and could not have them. Therefore there is nothing unconscious in the universe, although there are “subconscious” and “supraconscious” levels of consciousness.
As a result, Helena P. Blavatsky wrote:
“…Occultism, unlike modern Science, maintains that every atom of matter, when once differentiated, becomes endowed with its own kind of Consciousness. Every cell in the human body (as in every animal) is endowed with its own peculiar discrimination, instinct, and, speaking relatively, with intelligence.”
All parts of the human body have their own forms of intelligent perception and consciousness, as Blavatsky clarifies:
“Occultism tells us that every atom, like the monad of Leibnitz, is a little universe in itself; and that every organ and cell in the human body is endowed with a brain of its own, with memory, therefore, experience and discriminative powers.” 
In “The Secret Doctrine”, she puts it this way:
“Esoteric philosophy teaches that everything lives and is conscious, but not that all life and consciousness are similar to those of human or even animal beings.” 
The term “unconscious” is technically inappropriate, therefore. “Unconsciousness” can’t be found anywhere. There are but forms of consciousness that seem to be unknown to us, and especially to our thinking minds. There are levels of human, planetary and cosmic consciousness that are involuntary, non-verbal, non-“mental”, and little-known.
In spite of these facts, the concept of “unconscious” still circulates widely. And worse: it circulates as if it were a recent invention. In fact, involuntary and little-known forms of consciousness have always been studied by the esoteric tradition. But the ancients did not fall into the illusion of imagining that there is something devoid of life or consciousness.
A Master of the Himalayas wrote:
“Take Darwin’s genealogical tree of life of the human race and others and bearing ever in mind the wise old adage, ‘As below so above’ – that is the universal system of correspondences – try to understand by analogy. (…) In this day on this present earth in every mineral, etc., there is such a spirit. I will say more. Every grain of sand, every boulder or crag of granite, is that spirit crystallized or petrified.” 
The advice in the ancient Greek temple at Delphi, “Know thyself”, contains in its two words a clear reference to the unknown aspects of our own consciousness. If it is necessary to seek self-knowledge, the fact is established that we do not know ourselves and largely ignore the deeper, non-verbal layers of our own consciousness.
Esoteric philosophy teaches us how to effectively see the difference between the lower non-verbal consciousness, of the animal soul, and the higher non-verbal consciousness, or higher consciousness, which is the divine consciousness in every human being. About this, it may be useful to read the text “Chelas And Lay Chelas”, by Helena Blavatsky. 
It is clear therefore that Sigmund Freud and those who worked immediately before him did not discover the little-known levels of human consciousness. They also did not discover the so-called “unconscious”, which by the way does not exist. However, Freud has the merit of approaching the topic with scientific language and modern experimental methods, and of revealing extremely useful knowledge regarding the life of the lower self and the non-verbal aspects of animal soul.
Unlike Carl Jung, who ignored ethics, Sigmund Freud was guided by moral feelings. The practice of honesty protected him in the search for truth.
Freud relied explicitly and loyally on ancient wisdom, and used the Myth of Oedipus and the works of several other thinkers prior to him (such as Fyodor Dostoevsky), to build his theories and inform his practice. It is worth mentioning at this point that Dostoevsky’s works have theosophical aspects and are referred to in the Letters from the Mahatmas and in the writings of H.P. Blavatsky.
In his essay “The Future of an Illusion”, Freud wrote that his personal deity, the deity he followed, was the ancient Greek Logos. This means that his personal divinity was Truth, the very same idea one finds in the motto of the theosophical movement, which says: “There is no religion higher than Truth”. A comparison between Freud’s view of the main conventional religions and the classical theosophical view, as taught in Letter X and other texts of the “Mahatma Letters”, shows the identity of the two points of view. 
Freud made mistakes. He had clear limitations. He also made important contributions to human knowledge. Several disciples and followers of Freud – among them Erich Fromm, Wilhelm Reich, Alfred Adler, and Carl G. Jung – later developed their own approaches to Psychology. Among them, the works of Erich Fromm are not only linked to true Ethics, but have several points in common with authentic Theosophy.
The involuntary and non-verbal levels of human consciousness are traced back to the origins of human thought. Astrology and Mythology are examples of this basic fact. What is, for instance, the meaning of Pluto – both the god and the planet – on the mythological plane and therefore on the plane of the non-verbal layers of individual and collective consciousness?
Pluto is Hades, the god of hell, the god of death, the subterranean god, the god of lower non-verbal consciousness, the god of transmutation, transcendence, rebirth, regeneration. And it also relates to nuclear energy. Pluto/Hades means sudden change. It corresponds, in the positive sense, to the generation of life, to renewal, to the struggle for the good and the new. It symbolizes the unknown layers of the animal and terrestrial mind, which inevitably transmute and purify themselves in connection with the higher non-verbal layers.
Astronomically, Pluto is the last significant planet to be discovered, in 1930. Until that date, it was therefore a celestial consciousness literally unknown to our humanity. His brother Neptune (discovered in 1846) predominantly symbolizes cosmic consciousness in its peaceful aspect. The astronomical trajectories of the two have deep mathematical, geometric and occult connections.
We live a global transition. Pluto – the god of the subconscious or little-known consciousness – has a special role to play, and it’s already doing that. Everything that is favorable to life has a price to pay, and it has been said that “the gates of hell” must be opened at the same time that the re-connection with the divine world takes place.
The emergence of the Unknown unfolds. As the Pandora’s Box of collective Karma is opened, so are “the gates of Heaven and Hell”.
The simultaneous opening of these two doors results from a simple fact: it is impossible to open the doors of the unknown higher consciousness (Heaven) without at the same time opening the doors of the unknown lower consciousness (Hell).
Thus, when Hades/Pluto, the master of lower karma, opens the doors of “hell” and brings to the general consciousness the accumulated result of human ignorance, at the same time the doors of heaven or divine consciousness are opened.
Pluto is, above all, a regenerator. He paves the way to universal peace, sometimes symbolized by a bluish giant with faint rings: the mysterious Neptune, lord of the Oceans. Both planets actively work in the connection of our small solar system with the open space of the galaxy.
- The Unknown Levels of Consciousness
Since the dawn of our humanity, the esoteric tradition has studied and taught about the little-known levels of consciousness.
Plato’s famous Allegory of the Cave (in part seven of “The Republic”) discusses the nature of the higher, non-visual and non-verbal consciousness.
When the modern Theosophist studies the topic of the seven principles of consciousness, makes a research on concepts like skandhas, akasha and reincarnation or investigates how the awakening of buddhi-manasic consciousness can take place in one’s spiritual soul, he is dealing with facts and levels of consciousness which are entirely independent from conventional or self-conscious perceptions of reality.
What Sigmund Freud did, at the beginning of the 20th century, was to codify from the point of view of experimental science a knowledge of some of these non-verbal levels of consciousness, inadequately calling them the “unconscious”. Thus he adopted a term wrongly used by other scientists before him.
The mistake of thinking that “consciousness” is an exclusive property of human beings has deep cultural and psychological roots and results from spiritual ignorance.
There is no need to believe that “anything which I do not see does not exist”; or that “that which I do not understand must be rejected”, or that “those forms of consciousness of which I am not aware are not real consciousness”.
Such a mental habit is more than simply inaccurate. It serves as a convenient excuse to justify injustice and violence.
Animals, who can’t speak as we do, are considered “unconscious” and their widespread slaughter is then seen as “normal”.
Unspeaking forests and trees are blindly decimated since they “seem” not to have feelings or consciousness. Unborn babies, who cannot speak or argue, thus become the victims of irresponsible abortion. Examples are many.
The axiom taught by H.P. Blavatsky and the Mahatmas is valid: there is nothing unintelligent or unconscious in the universe, but both the universe and my own being have various forms and levels of consciousness that are largely unknown to myself at this time.
Sigmund Freud lived within his own karmic limitations. He acted the way he found possible at the time, and did useful research on the various kinds of consciousness, using modern scientific language.
In terms of human psychology, Freud correctly proposed and promoted the transmutation of involuntary and non-verbal awareness into voluntary, verbal and self-responsible awareness. In this he coincided with the aims of humanism, philosophy and theosophy. His goal was to expand the ability of the individual to know himself and to transcend blind impulses from the point of view of ethics.
Carl Gustav Jung took the opposite path. He praised the unconscious in a blind way, and implicitly promoted ethical irresponsibility. Jung was uncommitted to humanistic goals like international peace or to rational thought. He washed his hands in the face of “outbursts of unconscious irrationality” such as Nazism and Fascism, and even collaborated with German Nazism.
The path of Theosophy is the path along which the known or rational areas of consciousness expand. Every student of esoteric philosophy must face, study and understand according to the law of Karma everything that was previously “unknown” in his inner life.
Theosophy teaches the path of responsibility.
Everyone who wants to approach the spiritual path must understand three facts:
1) What we sow, we harvest, sooner or later;
2) Ethics is the art of planting good karma; and
3) No pleasant karmic harvest can last if the karma has not been properly planted by oneself at some earlier time.
These principles are present in the teachings of Buddha, Confucius, Christ, Krishna, Pythagoras and the true teachers of all times.
Ignoring the law of Karma is not a form of illusion that friends of mankind can accept. No need to mention any “clever” or even “spiritual” attempts to escape from the Law, or from truth. All of them lead to disaster. The road to bliss is the path of truth.
- Ethics, Jung and Nazism
Carl Jung is still relatively popular today in Western “esoteric” circles. It is advisable to pay due attention to the fact that Jung’s thought is very distant from the ethical philosophy taught by the great teachers of mankind. 
The spiritual path is the total transmutation of the individual along the road of universal ethics. The apprentice gradually starts breathing ethics. Words like “impersonal love”, “universal compassion”, and “fraternity” are alternative names for universal ethics.
This basic attitude results from a direct perception of the dynamic unity of all beings, which the truth-seeker obtains.
In his book “Psychoanalysis and Religion”, Erich Fromm makes a comparative analysis of the points of view held by Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud. Fromm defends Freud’s radical criticism of dogmatic religions, which use to work as herds of believers. The devotees are implicitly forbidden from reasoning for themselves.
According to Fromm, it is Freud, not Jung, who agrees with the Buddhist doctrine according to which ethics is inseparable from every expansion of consciousness. After establishing the fact that in Jung’s narrow view religion is limited to the plane of personal emotions, Fromm writes about the problem of Truth. He defends the deeper wisdom present in the great religions:
“In its relativism concerning truth, however, Jung’s concept of religion is in contrast to Buddhism, Judaism, and Christianity. In these, man’s obligation to search for the truth is an integral postulate. Pilate’s ironical question, ‘What is truth?’, stands as a symbol of an antireligious attitude from the standpoint not only of Christianity but of all other great religions as well.”
And Fromm concludes:
“Summing up the respective positions of Freud and Jung we may say that Freud opposes religion in the name of ethics – an attitude which can be termed ‘religious’. On the other hand, Jung reduces religion to a psychological phenomenon and at the same time elevates the unconscious to a religious phenomenon.” 
The absence of Ethics in Jung’s writings makes it easier to understand his position with regard to issues like Adolf Hitler, authoritarian racism and the Nazi policies of mass murder.
Jung’s trajectory through the cycle of Nazism and Fascism seems similar to the trajectory of the Vatican: in the beginning, there was a sympathy. Then, when democratic forces proved to be stronger, there was an opportunistic adjustment to the reality of the facts. Jung disliked being on the side of the weak, and he was always a friend of the powerful.
There is no evidence that Jung was personally a Nazi, but it seems to be an established fact that his position toward Nazism was at best ambiguous. While German intellectuals and friends of democracy were persecuted by Hitler during the first half of the 1930s, Jung maintained a good relationship with the Nazis. In 1933 he was invited by the Nazi party to an influential position and accepted it. Thus he worked at the “General Medical Society for Psychotherapy”, whose director was Goering’s nephew.
Although some of his friends were Jews, Jung wrote at the beginning of 1934 in an article entitled “The State of Psychotherapy Today”:
“The Jew who is something of a nomad has never yet created a cultural form of his own and as far as we can see never will, since all his instincts and talents require a more or less civilized nation to act as host for their development.” 
This is a not very subtle way of saying that Jewish persons are “uncivilized” and “parasites”, which means Jung was in line with the main slogans of Nazi propaganda.
Some of Jung’s followers think it is irrelevant that a thinker in the area of human sciences held a leading position under the Nazi regime, while liberty was already suppressed and Jewish and non-Nazi psychologists (including his ex-personal teacher Sigmund Freud) were persecuted and had to take refuge in free countries. However, his attitude cannot stand up to ethical scrutiny. It is only in line with Jung’s own writings, which implicitly propose the abandonment of ethics.
In fact, Carl Jung’s lack of moral commitment results from the way he views human world. Every truly spiritual or philosophical being is in solidarity with life: ethical blindness cannot happen by chance.
- Erich Fromm, Carl Jung and Necrophilia
In his book “The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness” , Erich Fromm discusses what he calls necrophilia, the sick cult of death and the impulse towards blind destruction.
Fromm quotes Lewis Mumford, and says that in ancient Egypt already the cult of death developed side by side with the worship of machines. 
Fromm shows the predominance of an admiration for death in Hitler’s Nazism and Spanish fascism. There was, in fact, a perverted form of mysticism in the way the agents of Nazism and Francoism killed defenseless people.
Several decades after Fromm, we see in the first half of the 21st century an unprecedented development of new machines. There is a growing disrespect for lives of plants, animals, children, the poor, and the poor in Africa, while the futile consumerism of the “upper middle class” spreads. The current civilization, which seems to subconsciously see machines as divine objects, presents an unprecedented threat to the different forms of life on our planet. From a psychoanalytic point of view, this is related to a “death instinct” or to “necrophilia”.
The signs of decay in a civilization, which multiply when destructive impulses seem to prevail, are just a means for Life to get rid of psychological and civilizational structures that no longer serve the growth of human souls.
Thus, the “evils” that have been exacerbated since the year 1900, when we entered the Aquarian age, do not cause an excessive disturbance to Theosophists. They trust the future, for they know that there is a law by which selfishness destroys itself.
One must observe and understand the mechanisms of spiritual ignorance, in order to avoid them, and Erich Fromm makes the task easier. In another significant book, “The Heart of Man, its genius for good and evil” , Fromm discusses what he calls “necrophilous character” – the psychological structure of the person who despises life and admires death.
After analyzing Hitler’s life and ideas, Fromm sees the same necrophilous character in Carl Gustav Jung.
Eichmann was one of Hitler’s famous aides, and Fromm writes:
“But examples of the necrophilous character are by no means to be found only among the inquisitors, the Hitlers, and the Eichmanns. There are any number of individuals who do not have the opportunity and the power to kill, yet whose necrophilia expresses itself in other and, superficially seen, more harmless ways. An example is the mother who will always be interested in her child’s sicknesses, in his failures, in dark prognoses for the future; at the same time she will not be impressed by a favorable change; she will not respond to the child’s joy; she will not notice anything new that is growing within him.”
“An outstanding example of this type of necrophilous character was C.G. Jung. In his posthumously published autobiography he gives ample evidence for this. His dreams are mostly filled with corpses, blood, killings. (…) His sympathies for Hitler and his racial theories are another expression of his affinity with death-loving people.” 
From an esoteric point of view, the unfortunate and self-defeating cult of death is just an external way of expressing the inner failure. It is a suicidal and murderous way of subconsciously seeking transcendence and unity with the Law of the Universe, through the annihilation of life.
With Antahkarana interrupted and therefore without the necessary connection between his mortal soul and his immortal soul, the individual seeks the Absolute through a blind impulse devoid of all discernment. For him, there is no Jacob’s ladder connecting the heavenly consciousness to human consciousness. He is worthy of sympathetic feelings, but the horror of his situation must be identified so that it doesn’t spread to more people.
The theosophical path, on the other hand, unfolds in harmony with true psychology – the science of the soul. The knowledge of the soul or psyche is inseparably united to Ethics and a feeling of respect for all forms of life. True Psychology teaches how to increase mutual knowledge and mutual help between the immortal soul and the mortal soul, between heaven and earth, not only in each individual but also in the community as a whole.
It is not by accident that one of the raja-yogis who inspired the foundation of the modern theosophical movement defined esoteric science as “Asian psychology”. This is the psychology of respect for truth and love of wisdom: philo-sophia. At the right time, the cult of machines and the contempt for life will increasingly give way to voluntary simplicity, to respect for all beings and universal wisdom or theos-sophia. For us as citizens and from a practical point of view, the most important thing is to make this transition within our own psychological worlds, while developing constructive and mutually supportive relationships.
- The Deliberate Use of Ambiguity
A false “ethical neutrality” is popular these days in so-called esoteric circles, and its votaries see themselves as very spiritual.
A calculated ambiguity regarding difficult issues is adopted by many due to the naiveté and illusion with which they seek for the spiritual path. Being ambiguous gives an appearance of legitimacy to their comfortable omission in the face of injustice, and to their complicity with actions that should be inacceptable to them.
In reality, everything that exists has its premises, its principles, and the theosophical movement is no exception.
In those who are under the influence of Carl Jung’s writings, we can find the false premise that “being spiritual” is not taking a stand for what is just and true. We see in such individuals a strange apathy and a systematic yet discreet escape from ethical options. The very subject of ethics is avoided. This attitude is not spiritual, although it seeks to be seen as such. Psychologically, it is unhealthy, as Erich Fromm demonstrates.
Many of Jung’s followers are ethical people due to their own individual good Karma. But an automatic avoidance of ethical issues and the easy coexistence with profound injustices are typical of those who were influenced by Jung, even in circles seen as spiritual and esoteric. Jung’s “neutralist” thinking is popular among superficial students of theosophy.
Let us look at some of the arguments used by followers of Jung and other sophists to justify their omission. Almost in every case they are employed in implicit ways. Open discussion is avoided because their reasoning cannot stand up to a logical examination. Clearly speaking about the arguments would immediately unmask their tactic of deliberate ambiguity.
Such individuals behave as if they thought like this:
1) “Are there powerful people telling lies and deceiving people? Well, because of the fact that I am spiritual, I must accept and forgive dishonesty. I believe spirituality is above ethics, above Law and above Justice. I am too high spiritually to defend the righteous in the face of injustice, or to speak the truth in the face of fraud.”
2) “Are the sacred ideals of universal wisdom being betrayed? It’s better to avoid the subject, since being spiritual is not making moral choices. In fact, I believe defending ethics is a neurotic attitude. And I think this especially when I can benefit from the omission. The normal thing is to be mediocre. All idealism is a form of neurosis, and in some cases masochism.”
3) “Perhaps the current civilization is preparing its own ruin, due to its ethical and environmental irresponsibility. Yet I am not responsible for this. It is not my duty to fight structural injustices. On the contrary, I have the right to benefit from them, but I try to do this discreetly, because I am a spiritual being.”
4) “Is someone denouncing and fighting the structures of injustice? This attitude seems wrong and anti-fraternal because it prevents superficial harmony. Psychologically, it’s not healthy.”
5) “Is someone defending an individual who was unjustly attacked? This is an imprudent and perhaps arrogant action. It certainly generates conflicts where harmony should reign.”
The theosophical proposal is diametrically opposed to these five arguments.
Esoteric philosophy promotes the valiant defense of those who are unjustly attacked, and its motto is the idea that “there is no religion, no interest and no institution that can be placed above the truth.”
In order to avoid pseudo-spiritual frauds and reduce the power of the “psychotherapies” that legitimize egocentrism, it is advisable to encourage free debate at all times on mistakes and successes of the different schools of thought.
Instead of following a “clever” combination of prevailing opinions to obtain prestige in the short term, true Theosophists and truth-seekers follow the principle adopted by the Jewish sage Moses Maimonides, who wrote in “The Guide for the Perplexed” these famous words:
“…When I have a difficult subject before me – when I find the road narrow, and can see no other way of teaching a well established truth except by pleasing one intelligent man and displeasing ten thousand fools – I prefer to address myself to the one man, and to take no notice whatever of the condemnation of the multitude; I prefer to extricate that intelligent man from his embarrassment and show him the cause of his perplexity, so that he may attain perfection and be at peace”. 
- H.P.B., Jung and the Nag Hammadi Library
James M. Robinson was the general English-language editor of the “Nag Hammadi Library”, a collection of Gnostic texts from the 4th century of the Christian era, discovered in 1945 in Egypt. One of the famous texts from Nag Hammadi is the Gospel of St. Thomas.
The Afterword to the valuable Library was written by Richard Smith. There we find this honest record of a historical fact:
“It was Madame Blavatsky who first claimed the Gnostics as precursors for the occult movement. In her program to divide speculative learning into esoteric and exoteric, truth and religion, the Gnostics were an obvious opposition to what she called ‘Churchianity’.” 
In other words, the esoteric (Gnostic) point of view is opposite to the exoteric point of view of the dogmatic churches.
After that Richard Smith makes a long quotation from “Isis Unveiled”, the book by H.P. Blavatsky published in 1877, and discusses the role of H.P.B. in the modern revival of the Gnostics as a subject. He recognizes the pioneering role of the founder of the modern esoteric movement. Then Smith highlights the fact that Jung replaced the idea of the divine world with the idea of the collective unconscious.
What’s wrong with this? The problem is that, while the divine world is synonymous with the Law of Balance, goodness, and harmlessness, Jung’s “collective unconscious” harbors all sorts of things, some of which are deeply absurd and anti-evolutionary. Richard Smith makes a reference to a work written by Carl Jung in 1916, entitled “The Seven Sermons to the Dead” and signed at the time under the pseudonym “Basilides”. One of the excerpts cited by Smith pays homage to “Abraxas”. In it, Jung writes:
“Abraxas begetteth truth and lying, good and evil, light and darkness, in the same word an in the same act. Wherefore is Abraxas terrible. It is love and love’s murder. It is the saint and his betrayer. It is the brightest light of day and the darkest night of madness.” 
Here we see Jung’s ambiguity between loyalty to truth and treason to it, and his inability or unwillingness to choose truthfulness. The very title of his work “The Seven Sermons to the Dead” seems to confirm the mental illness of necrophilia, diagnosed by Erich Fromm.
In the early 1950s, a great Jewish writer, Martin Buber, harshly criticized Jung for his work “Seven Sermons to the Dead”, as reported by Smith. 
Jung is a truth-denier and a Law-denier. He ignores the need for moral evolution. Yet ethics – which can be defined as the art of perceiving right and wrong – is central to identifying the type of karma we are planting; and for the understanding of the true goal towards which we are advancing, with our actions.
The Mahatmas of the Himalayas make it clear in their Letters that all evil and all evil action are short-term creations of the present human stage, and will be amply compensated in accordance with the law of Equilibrium.  There is no ambivalence in matters of good and evil in any level of divine consciousness. What permeates right and wrong alike is the Universal and impersonal LAW according to which what is planted, is reaped sooner or later. Thus all beings learn to sow truthfulness and goodness, in order to receive sincerity and goodness and attain bliss and liberation.
- Carl Jung or the Alchemy of Selfishness
Each time a student of universal ethics examines a text by Carl Jung, remarkable problems emerge. Writing about Alchemy, for example, Jung makes a large amount of preposterous statements. It may be useful to select one or two of them, which are especially significant and seem to indicate the dark Karmic waters navigated by him.
In a text about Paracelsus, Jung wrote:
“…The truth of the Church and the Christian standpoint could never get along with the thought implicit in all alchemy, ‘God under me’.” 
What should we say about that?
In the first place, Esoteric Philosophy dismantles the myth of a monotheistic god. It makes no sense to talk of a unique and singular God who manipulates the evolution of Nature according to his personal wishes.
Secondly, it is a complete nonsense – if not a deliberate falsehood – to say that Alchemy has ever had the intention of placing itself above the divine world, or above the Divine Law; or that it aims at placing the deities below the alchemist.
From the ethical and Karmic viewpoint, this is the gravest mistake anyone can make. The idea expressed by Jung denotes a profound spiritual ignorance. The goal of Alchemy is in fact to know and to humbly cooperate with the Laws of Nature, and with the Universal Law, which are both divine and transcendent.
The alchemist places himself at the service of the divine world. This is the highest goal he can aspire to, and he is happy enough with such a bliss. On the other hand, Hitlerism and Nazi sorcery – along with similar activities – invert the levels of consciousness and place a human being devoid of ethics in the role of a thief of divine things.
Alchemy is inseparable from Ethics, a topic which is remarkably absent from the writings of Carl G. Jung. An “elegant” and “refined” selfishness does not care about Ethics; but every field of authentic knowledge is inseparable from it.
In his search for absolute power, Adolf Hitler misused concepts and realities of the astral and subtle world, but he did this with inverted signs, using a calculated ambiguity, and, of course, with no respect for life or for truth.
In another part of his text on Paracelsus, Jung repeats the idea that, in the alchemical process, man places the divinity below him. Using words like “daemonic” in a dangerously ambivalent way, Jung separates alchemy from any ethics or decency. He demonstrates that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, unless he’s consciously calling Alchemy a witchcraft of the worst kind, such as Hitler’s. This, however, would have nothing to do with Paracelsus, nor with true alchemy.
Carl Jung states:
“The inner driving-force behind the aspirations of alchemy was a presumption whose daemonic grandeur on the one hand and psychic danger on the other should not be underestimated. Much of the overbearing pride and arrogant self-esteem, which contrasts so strangely with the truly Christian humility of Paracelsus, comes from this source.”
Alchemy is the exact opposite of what Jung says. It is in harmony with Christian mysticism, with Christian ethics, and with the mysticism and ethics of other religions. Without ethics, there is no alchemy. This is the unavoidable starting point, in approaching Jung’s work or anyone’s work from a philosophical and esoteric point of view.
Whenever a supposed knowledge deals with astral and subtle realities but does not put itself humbly and honestly in the service of the divine world, it must be classified as inferior witchcraft or selfish magic. Every authentic knowledge has an ethical intent. The intention of the truth-seeker determines the kind of magnetic field which surrounds him.
Contrary to what misinformed readers of Carl G. Jung might think, Paracelsus is one of the great names of the highest ethical, mystical and alchemical tradition, whose aim is to increase the Light of human Reason and to encourage the correct practice of universal brotherhood.
 “Collected Writings”, H.P. Blavatsky, TPH, USA, volume X, p. 322. Also “H.P. Blavatsky Quotation Book”, Theosophy Company (India), 110 pp., 1991, p. 73.
 “Collected Writings”, H.P. Blavatsky, TPH, USA, vol. XII, p. 134. Also “Transactions of the Blavatsky Lodge”, Theosophy Company, Los Angeles, 150 pp., 1923, see p. 25.
 Click to see the text “Chelas And Lay Chelas”.
 See the translation of chapter 11 of the book “Três Caminhos Para a Paz Interior”, Carlos Cardoso Aveline, Ed. Teosófica, Brasília, Brazil, 2002: “A Psychoanalysis of Religions”.
 “Psychoanalysis and Religion”, New Haven – Yale University Press, copyright 1950, 1959 Yale edition, third printing 1961, 119 pp., see the last paragraphs of chapter II, pp. 19-20.
 See the essay “Jung And Antisemitism”, by Andrew Samuels, University of Essex 1997 (Originally published in The Jewish Quarterly, Spring 1994). The text is available online thanks to the Institute of Historical Research.
 “The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness”, Erich Fromm, Fawcett Publications Inc., Greenwich, Connecticut, USA, 1973, paperback edition, 576 pp.
 “The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness”, Erich Fromm. On the relation between the cult of machines and destruction of life, see pages 380-405. The final part of the book, chapters 11 to 13, is dedicated to the discussion of necrophilia as a disease both social and individual.
 “The Heart of Man – its genius for good and evil”, Erich Fromm, Harper & Row, Publishers, New York, Evanston, San Francisco, London, 1964, paperback edition, 212 pp.
 “The Heart of Man – its genius for good and evil”, Erich Fromm, op. cit. pp. 43 through 45.
 From the book “The Guide for the Perplexed”, by Moses Maimonides, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, USA, 414 pages, see “Introduction”, p. 9.
 “The Nag Hammadi Library”, revised edition, James M. Robinson, HarperSanFrancisco, New York, USA, 1990, 550 pp., see pp. 537-538.
 “The Nag Hammadi Library”, 1990, 550 pp., see p. 539.
 “The Nag Hammadi Library”, same page.
 Click to see Letter Ten of the Mahatma Letters, published under the title “Masters Teach That There Is No God”.
 “Alchemical Studies”, by Carl Gustav Jung, in the item “Magic”, paragraph number 155. In the Portuguese language edition, “Estudos Alquímicos”, Carl Gustav Jung, Ed. Vozes, RJ, Brazil, 422 pp., 2003, see p. 123.
 “Alchemical Studies”, by C. J. Jung, item “The Arcane Teaching”, paragraph number 164. In the Portuguese language edition, “Estudos Alquímicos”, pp. 130-131.
* “Freud, Jung, And Ethics” (an article by Erich Fromm).