The Evolution Of An Archetype

The following thoughts were written in response to an article on Ancient Gnosticism. In particular, the role of a Gnostic Demiurge called "Lord Archon", said to be a false god, or impostor, believed to have impersonated God in the form of the Hebrew deity Jehovah. The article may be found here: http://www.metahistory.org/gnostique/telestics/GnosticLens.php

My response:

It sounds like the story of the Archon could easily have arisen as a reaction to the "false god" of the Hebrews. It would have been a way to characterize the Jehovah of the OT as evil (which he clearly was in many instances; regardless of whether or not he actually existed as something independent of the imaginations of men). The story/myth of the Archon would have arisen naturally. It could have been deliberately invented, or arisen directly from the unconscious. Archetypes like this can arise in the mind as a response, or an interpretation, which makes the former way of seeing more palatable, or more rational, and psychically "digestible". This is somewhat difficult to explain.

In the documentary "Matter of Heart", we hear an account of how C.G. Jung told a story about a woman on the moon. The listener thought, at first, that either this man, Jung, is crazy, or she, the listener, is too unintelligent to understand his meaning. She protested, "You mean, the woman imagined, or believed, herself on the moon." But he insisted, "No, she was on the moon." As it turned out, Jung was trying to indicate a subtle truth about the nature of consciousness. Namely, that the moon we see in the mind is, in a very immediate sense, much more real than the rock that orbits the Earth at a great distance. The mental image of the moon is the real moon. Certainly, for the woman who was "on the moon", it was a very real experience indeed. These archetypes are in the mind, and "in a mysterious way", as Jung says, they are in the world.

The esoteric scholar, Manly P. Hall, tells us that, in antiquity, everything was (and/or was understood to be) ensouled. Every object had a kind of consciousness, and every idea was merely the representation of an anthropomorphic entity. Wisdom was a woman, named Sophia. This is how the ancients understood the world. Hence, the notion that Jehovah is not God would automatically result in the arising of an archetype of the false god, or impostor god. Because negating Jehovah does not make "him" nonexistent to the ancient mind. It doesn't reduce him to a wrong idea, a fiction. Rather, he is still a being (as all ideas are beings), but now he is an impostor. And since Jehovah (or what we would now call "the idea of Jehovah", or "the belief in Jehovah") was so popular, so powerful, clearly exercising tremendous influence on the affairs of men, -- it makes perfect sense that the archetype of Jehovah, for unbelievers, would be transformed into a demiurge.

The idea of Loki, the idea of Maya (goddess of illusion, in Buddhism, who rules the material realm), and the idea of Archon probably all arose as a response to a god worshiped by other sects, in order to refute that god, and disempower their hold on consciousness. We should not underestimate the influence of a god, or an idea of god, even on the mind of one who consciously disbelieves in his/her existence. In order to sever that hold, it is necessary to supplant the notion of the god with another notion. Hence, Archon is not merely envisioned as a false god, but, in fact, as the false god whom the Jews knew as Jehovah. No doubt Maya and Loki resembled their counterparts as well.

Moreover, the archetype of Lord Archon may be said to be another, higher, incarnation of the archetype of Jehovah. According to Hall, not only is everything ensouled, but everything grows and evolves. The idea or ideology of capitalism, he says, is a spirit seeking wisdom. It is a god of wealth, and it will continue to incarnate until the possession of wealth poses no threat, and does no harm, to any sentient being. The impostor Archon, then, could be seen as a step up from the jealous, angry god, Jehovah. In a sense, it is as if the god, Jehovah, is realizing, through the medium of history, that he is false. Even as men are realizing it. The two are one.

I'm sorry if I can't make this more clear, but it's one of the subtlest things (if not the most subtle thing) there is, and not easily described or understood. The fact may actually be that what we are discussing is fairly simple, but is made extremely difficult and complicated on account of all our preconceived categories of thinking. We cannot merely communicate the truth; we have to somehow subvert the notions which are inhibiting its realization. What's more, we can only use the terms and categories with which we are already familiar -- or with which we mistakenly think we are familiar. There is much to untangle.

In the final analysis, it is my present belief that we cannot know the reality of these things. They are hidden in history. Not only that, but, even two thousand years ago, when these events were occurring, pains were taken to conceal the truth. Lastly, we have to suppose that every sect had its own version of "the truth", and probably its own exoteric cover story, as well. For one sect, Jesus was a mushroom. For another, he was a man of great wisdom. For yet another, he was the one true Son of God. And for still others, these terms might be used, but only symbolically. The difficulty for us is to conceive of the possibility that all of this is true. Just as the woman spoken of by Jung really was on the moon, Jesus really was a mushroom, to the ones who saw it that way. He was also the Son of God. He was also just a man, a mortal teacher, a guru. And, yes, he was also just another symbol for the Sun, and for spiritual awakening (or the inner sun). Whatever you think he is, he is.

To imagine that we can discover one explanation, one true idea of who or what Jesus is or was, is really just absurd. Even back then, the search was ambiguous, and perhaps no less ambiguous than it is to us now. Even then, he was many things to many people. Even then, there was no right answer. Only a choice. Who do you think he is? Who is he to you? Who do you want him to be? Because what you think is really what matters. It doesn't matter if "the second coming" never happens. If you believe in it, then it is always a reality; albeit a reality which (always) has yet to happen.

This ambiguity must be accepted and embraced. Ultimately, our own desperation in the face of the unknown must be embraced. We must be able to admit that we do not know, and that we probably never will know. And we must admit that any hypothesis we form will be just that -- a hypothesis. Again, probably not one which can ever be sufficiently confirmed. What matters is the effect our notion of who (and/or what) Jesus is (and/or was) has on our inner life. Does it make us better people? Does it lead us onward towards the actualization of a righteous life? Does it make us more compassionate, more intuitive, more rational? And so on. These are not questions we can put to history. In any case, they are not likely to be answered by history. We must put them to ourselves. We must hold these notions (of Jesus, or whoever) in our hearts and minds, and see how they feel, how they fit, how they hold up against scrutiny, against misfortune, and against the world.

At the end of the day, we must understand that even the most exalted image of Christ -- that is, even the most exalted image of Christ of which we are capable of imagining, or communing with -- is something to be transcended. If we go with Manly Hall, then it is not a something, but a someone, an entity, who desires even to transcend himself, and to be re-envisioned at every successive evolutionary stage of consciousness. In this sense, Christ does not want to be known, and will overturn and overrule all our attempts to describe him. Because what he wants is always to be rediscovered. Just as, what we want is always to rediscover him. These two processes are one. We are not so much evolving an idea of him -- neither is he evolving himself, -- but, rather, it is the relationship, as depicted in consciousness, between us and him, which is evolving, and continues to evolve. We might go so far (and certainly some have gone so far) as to say that there is no us, and no him. Only this numinous relationship of one ephemeral reflection to another.