Jung and the Kaballah

8/6/2019 Jung and the Kaballah

1/17

History of Psychology Copyright 1999 by the Educational Publishing Foundation1999, Vol. 2,No. 2, 102-118 1093-4510/99/S3.00

JUNG AND THE KABBALAHSanford L. Drob

New York UniversityBellevue Medical CenterJung's use of Kabbalistic symbols and ideas as well as his personal Kabbalisticvision are critically examined. It is argued that as great as Jung's acknowledgedaffinity is to the Kabbalah, his unacknowledged relationship was even greater. Jungha s been accused of being a contemporary Gnostic; however, the interpretations Jungplaced on Gnosticism and the texts Jung referred to on alchemy were profoundlyKabbalistic, so much so that one would be more justified in calling the Jun g of theMysterium Coniunctionis and other late works a Kabbalist in contemporary guise.Although Jung, at least during the 1930s, appears to have had powerful motives thatlimited his receptivity to Jewish ideas, his highly ambivalent and at timesreproachable attitude toward Judaism should not prevent one from appreciating theaffinities between Jungian psychology an d Jewish m ystical thought.

In a letter to the Rev.Erastus Evans, written on 17 February 1954, Carl Jungdescribed the excitement of his first encounter with the Kabbalistic symbols ofSevirat ha-Kelim (the Breaking of the Vessels) and Tikkun ha-Olam (theRestoration of the World):

In a tract of the Lurianic Kabbalah, the remarkable idea is developed that man isdestined to become God's helper in the attempt to restore the vessels which werebroken when God thought to create a world. Only a few weeks ago, I came acrossthis impressive doctrine which gives meaning to man's status exalted by theincarnation. I am glad that I can quote at least one voice in favor of my ratherinvoluntary manifesto. (Jung, 1973, Vol. 2, p. 157)Several years later, in a letter to a Ms. Edith Schroeder, who had inquired regarding"the significance of Freud's Jewish descent for the origin, content and acceptanceof psychoanalysis," Jung replied:

One would have to take a deep plunge into the history of the Jewish mind. Thiswould carry us beyond Jewish Orthodoxy into the subterranean workings ofHasidism . . . and then into the intricacies of the Kabbalah, which still remainsunexplored psychologically. (Jung, 1973, Vol. 2, pp. 358-359)Jung then informed Schroeder that he himself could not perform such a taskbecause he had no knowledge of Hebrew and was not acquainted with all therelevant sources.

In point of fact, Jung, in the last decades of his life, had taken a deep interest inthe psychological aspects of a number of Kabbalistic symbols and ideas; ideas towhich he had been exposed primarily through his reading of 16th- and 17th-century alchemical texts, and especially through the writings of the ChristianKabbalist and alchemist Christian Knorr VonRosenroth (1636-1689). As a result,Jung's last great work, Myster ium Coniunctionis (1955-1956/1963), completed in

Sanford L. Drob, Department of Psychiatry, New York UniversityBellevueMedical Center.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sanford L. Drob, 83 IthacaAvenue, Atlantic Beach, New York 11509.

102


2/17

JUNG AND THE KABBALAH 103his 80th year, in 1954, though ostensibly a treatise on alchemy, is filled withdiscussions of such Kabbalistic symbols as Adam Kadmon (Primordial M an), theSefirot, and the union of the "Holy One" and his bride. These symbols becameimportant pivots around which Jung constructed his final interpretations of suchnotions as the archetypes and the collective unconscious and his theory of theultimate psychological purpose of humankind.Yet as great as Jung's acknowledged affinity is to the Kabbalah, hisunacknowledged relationship was even greater. For every reference to theKabbalah in Jun g's w ritings, there are several to Gnosticism and perhaps dozens toalchemy: yet the interpretations Jung places on G nosticism (itself a close cousin tothe Kabbalah), and the very texts Jung refers to on alchemy, were profoundlyKabbalistic, so much so that one could call the Jung of the MysteriumConiunctionis and other later works a Kabbalist (albeit a Christian one) incontemporary guise.Jung has frequently been called a Gnostic. It is interesting that Jung's mainaccuser in this regard was the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, who is wellknown for, among other things, his work on Hasidism. Buber held that Jung wasGnostic because he reduced God to the inner divine spark in humans and identifiedreligious experience with a turning inward into the self, as opposed to aparticipation in relations with others as the vehicle for relating to a transcendentGod (Buber, 1952; see also Dourley, 1994). Conversely, the Christian "death ofGod" theologian, Thomas J. J. Altizer, hailed Jung's "Gnosticism" as part of hisproof of the death of a transcendent God, which, through Christ, had becomecompletely im man ent in hum ankind (Altizer, 1959, see also Segal, 1992).For reasons that I detail in this article, it is my view that Jung is far moreKabbalistic than he is Gnostic, and he is "alchemical" largely to the extent that thealchemists borrowed from and relied on K abbalistic ideas. I also argue that in the1930s, when Jun g was formulating a psychology based on his reading of alchemy,he had a strong m otive to suppress the "Jewish"origins of man y alchemical ideas.In this article, I show that Jung ultima tely read G nosticism in such a man ner asto transform a radical anticosmic, anti-individualistic doctrine into a world-affirming basis for an individual psychology. Furthermore, I show that heinterpreted alchemy so as to extract its Kabbalistic spiritual and psychologicalcore. Had Jung been sufficiently familiar with the Kabbalists (and Hasidim), histask could have been fa r easier, fo r their writings would have provided Jung apsychologically richer and more sympathetic symbolism than either the "other-worldly" theories of the Gnostics or the radically material practice of thealchemists. Indeed, in some instances the Gnostics, the alchemists, and theKabbalists share the same symbols and images (e.g., the "sparks," "PrimordialMan"), but in each case the Kabbalistic approach to these symbols is the closest toJung's own . In short, by providing a "this-worldly" interpretation of Gnosticism,and a spiritual-psychological interpretation of alchemy, Jung a rrived at a view thatwas in many ways Kabbalistic in spirit. Indeed, Jung, in his interpretation ofalchemy, succeeded remarkably in extracting the Kabbalistic "gold" that layburied in the alchemists' texts and methods. His work can then be profitablyunderstood as falling in the tradition of those thinkers such as Pico dellaMirandola; Johannes Reuchlin (1983); and Knorr von Rosenroth, who created adistinctively Christian Kabbalah (Scholem, 1974, pp. 196-201).


3/17

104 DROBJung can be interpreted as a contemporary Kabba list yet one w ho provides thebasis for a radical psychological interpretation of the Kabbalists' symbols andideas. Such an interpretation was not altogether foreign to the Kabbaliststhemselves, who, on the principle of the microcosm mirroring the macrocosm,held that their own descriptions of cosmic events were also, and equallyprofoundly, descriptions of the dynamics within men's souls (Idel, 1988, 1995).Indeed, such an interpretation of the Kabbalah provided the major impetus for thedoctrines of the Hasidim. Still, Jung took this psychologization process furtherthan either the Kabbalists or the Hasidim , living in a prepsychoan alytic age, couldever have hoped to do themselves.

The KabbalahThe Kabbalah, the most developed expression of Jewish mysticism, is a vastsubject that today commands its own field of study. Rooted in early Jewish

mysticism, and regarded by many as a Jewish form of Gnosticism (Scholem,1941/1961, 1960), the Kabbalah achieved its own unique expression in theanonymous Sefer HaBahir, generally regarded as the earliest extant text in thismystical genre (Scholem, 1962/1987). It is in this w ork that the theory of the 10Sefirot, the value archetypes (Will, Wisdom, Understanding, Kindness, Judgment,Beauty, Glory, Splendor, Foundation, an d Kingship) that the Kabbalists all held tobe the essence of creation, begins to take form. The locus classicus, however, forthe Sefirot and other Kabbalistic symbols, is the Zohar (Sperling & Simon,1931-1934; Tishby & Lachower, 1989), traditionally attributed to the rabbinicsage Simeon ben Yochai (with w hom, as we shall see, Jung iden tified himself) butthought by contemporary scholars to have originated in Spain some time in the13th century. The Zohar, which is written as a loose and far-reaching com mentaryon the Torah (the Five Books of Moses), is the source of much of the "wed dingsymbolism" (unifications of the various Sefirot) that preoccupied the alchemistsstudied by Jung. Its homilies on the nature of the unknowable infinite, themasculine and the feminine, and the relationship between good and evil canprovide much of interest to analytic and archetypal psychologists. Jung himselfquoted a number of Zoharic passages and appears to have been acquainted withboth a German and an En glish translation of portions of this book.It is, however, the radical reformulation of the Kabbalah, initiated by IsaacLuria (1534-1572) and recorded by his disciplesnotably, Chayyim Vital(1542-1620)that is of the greatest interest from a Jungian perspective. Luria'sideas were little known outside orthodox Jewish circles, however, until GershomScholem brought them to the attention of the intellectual world in the 1930s and1940s (Scholem, 1941/1961). The Lurianic Kabbalah is of interest in part becauseof its systematic and dynam ic treatment of many of the symbols and conceptionsof the earlier Kabbalah (see Elior, 1993; Jacobs, 1987; Schochet, 1981; Scholem,1973, 1974).Jung's Familiarity With the Kabbalah

Jung does not appear to have had any in-depth knowledge of the original textsof the Kabbalah. Although Mysterium Coniunctionis includes citations of Sperlingand Simon's English translation of the Zohar (first published in 1931-1934), aswell as of a German translation of the Zohar by Ernst Mueller (Jung, 1955-1956/


4/17

JUNG AND THE KABBALAH 1051963, pp. 47, 634), the majority of Jung's specific citations of Kabbalistic sym bolsand ideas are of the writings of Knorr Von Rosenroth, whose Kabbalah Denudata,published in 1684, is a Latin translation of passages from the Zohar, otherKabba listic writings, and essays on the meaning of the Kabbalah (Scholem, 1974).Kn orr 's work was the most important non-Hebrew reference on the Kabbalah untilthe close of the 19th century and was the major source on the Kabbalah fo rnon-Jewish scholars at least up to that time. Knorr, writing after the advent anddissemination of the Lurianic K abbalah, includes (among m any other things) Latintranslations of portions of the Zohar, Cordovero's Pardes Rimmonim, a detailedexplanation of the Kabbalistic tree after Luria, and even some of the writings ofLuria himself.Jung had "visions" inspired by the symbolism of the Kabbalist MosesCordovero (Jung, 1961, pp. 293-295), and Cordovero's Pardes Rimonim is cited inthe bibliography ofMysterium Coniunctionis, but the only actual reference is in asingle footnote, and this is cited through Knorr (Jung, 1955-1956/1963, p. 22).Although Jung was clearly aware of the work of Gershom Scholem, who beganattending the Eranos conferences after W orld W ar II, Jung appears not to have readScholem's writings closely prior to 1954. Otherwise he would have undoubtedlybeen familiar w ith certain doctrines of the Lurianic K abbalah, such as the Breakingof the Vessels and Tikkun, prior to the da te he acknowledged in his letter to Evansin February of that year. Jung carried on a correspondence with a number ofstudents who had firsthand knowledge of Kabbalistic texts and even acknowledgedto R. J. Zw i W erblosky that he had received a copy of the Kabbalist R. Gikatila'stext on dream s (Jun g, 1973, Vol. 2, p. 122), but the overwhelming evidence in boththe Mysterium and the letters is that Jun g derived his working knowledge of theKabbalah from Knorr Von Rosen roth, references to the Kabbalah in the writings ofsuch alchemists as Dorn, and an occasional perusal of the French and Germanliterature on the Kabbalah extant before the field w as thoroughly transforme d byScholem.Jun g's limited fam iliarity with Kabbalistic texts and ideas in no way preventedhim from commenting profoundly and in some detail on certain Kabbalisticsymbols, such as the Sefirot, of which he was aware. The major Kabbalistic ideasthat concerned Jung were those that had clear parallel formations in Gnosticismand alchemy: the notion of a spark of divine light contained within humanity; theconcept of Primordial Adam, who contains within himself in coincidentiaoppositorum the various conflicting tendencies within the human spirit; and thetheory of divine unifications, particularly the unifications of good an d evil andmasculine and feminine.In spite of an occasional reference to Luria, absent from any detailedconsideration in Jung's major works are the symbols of Tzimtzum (DivineContraction), Shevirah (the Breaking of the Vessels), and Tikkun ha-Olam (theRestoration of the W orld), which are unique to the Lurianic Kabbalah. It is true,however, that jus t as these Lurianic concepts w ere implicit in the Kabba lah thatpreceded Luria (e.g., the Zohar) , they are, as we will see, also implicit in thealchemical writings that borrowed so heavily from the earlier Kabbalah. Had Jungconsidered these symbols prior to 1954, they would have been of invaluableservice to him, not only in his attempt to grasp the spiritual and psychologicalnature of alchemy but also in the expression of his own psychology of the self.


5/17

106 DROBJung's Interpretive Method

Jung's interpretation of Gnosticismindeed, his interpretation of religiousphenomena in generalrests on his theory of the history of the human psyche(Segal, 1992, pp. 11-13). According to Jung, humankind ha s historically movedfrom a condition in w hich it projects the con tents of its unconscious onto the worldand heavens to one in which, as a result of a total identification with the rationalpowers of the ego, it has not on ly withdraw n its projections from the world but alsofails completely to recognize the archetypes of the unconscious mind. Thesearchetypes, however, reappear in the form of neurotic symptoms. Jung wrote:

The gods have become diseases; Zeus n o longer rules Olympus but rather the solarplexus, and produces curious specimens for the doctor's consulting room, ordisorders the brains of politicians and journa lists wh o unw ittingly let loose psychicepidemics on the world. (Jung, 1929/1967, p. 37)Psychologyspecifically, Jungian psychologyis in a position to provideindividuals with a direct awareness of the archetypes within their own psyches.This, Jung believed, can be accomplished through an interpretation of thespontaneous symbolic projections of the unconscious in fantasy, art, and dreams,guided by a new psychological understanding of the basic archetypal images thathave presented themselves in the history of myth and religion. Jung turned to thishistory for a catalogue o r map of the contents of the collective unco nsciou s, and heinterpreted his patients' (archetypal) dreams and images accordingly. His interestin the "dead" religion of Gnosticism, as well as in the forgotten science ofalchemy, lies in the fact that their symbols presumably contain a more or less

pristine crystallization of the collective unconscious, undisturbed by the ego-oriented reinterpretations of reason and dogma. Indeed, the long incognizance ofthe Kabbalah in official Judaism suggests that it too preserves elements of thecollective unconscious in a relatively pure form.Jung and Gnosticism: The S even S ermons to the Dead

Jung's interpretation of Gnosticism was critical to his understanding of theKabb alah, not only because man y of the major Kabbalistic themes are anticipatedin the Gnostic sources with which Jung was familiar but also because Jung'sgeneral approach to both alchemy and the Kabbalah was shaped by hisinterpretation of the Gnostics.The identity of Gnosticism is itself open to considerable debate (see Filoramo,1990; Robinson , 1988; Rud olph , 1987). Trad itionally, Gnosticism was viewed as aChristian heresy that developed alongside the early Catholic C hurch in the 2nd and3rd centuries. The discovery in 1945 of a library of Gn ostic texts at Nag Hammadialong the Nile River in Egypt, and their eventual publication, has led to a view ofGnosticism as a multifaceted religious phenomenon independent of Christianity.The origins of G nosticism are far from clear. Some scholars have hypothesizeda Jewish origin to this syncretistic religious phenomenon (Wilson, 1974). Otherscholars have looked to the Qumran texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls and otherapocryphal texts of Judaismfor example, the Book of Wisdom and the Book ofEnoch which date from just before and dur ing the advent of the Christian era, forthe origins of the Gnostic quest fo r ontological knowledge and personalillumina tion (Filoramo, 1990).


6/17


7/17

108 DROBYears later, wh en Jung took a second look at Gnosticism through the eyes of amore fully developed archetypal psychology, he reversed himself an d interpreted itin a manner that is far more friendly to the world and the individual, and, as I argue,far more Kabbalistic than Gnostic.

Jung's Interpretation of GnosticismJung eventually interpreted the Gnostic myths, including the origin of thecosmos in the pleroma, the emergence of an ignorant God or demiurge, thecreation of a Primordial Man, and the placing of a spark of divinity withinindividual persons, in completely psychological terms. The Gnostic myths do not,according to Jung, refer to cosmic or even external hum an even ts but rather reflectthe basic archetypal developments of the human psyche. Jung regarded thepleroma, within which is contained the undifferentiated unity of all opposites andcontradictions, as nothing but the primal unconscious from which the humanpersonality will emerge. The "demiurge,"whom the Gnostics disparaged as beingignorant of its pleromatic origins, represents the conscious, rational ego, which inits arrogance believes that it, too, is both the creator and master of the humanpersonality. The spark, or scintilla, which is placed in the human soul, representsthe possibility of the psyche's reunification with the unconscious, and the primalanthropos (Adam Kadmon, or Christ), which is related to this spark, is symbolic ofthe "self," the achieved unification of a conscious, individuated personality withthe full range of oppositions an d archetypes in the unconscious mind . "Our aim,"Jung wrote, "is to create a wider personality whose centre of gravity does notnecessarily coincide with the ego" but rather "in the hypothetical point betweenconscious and unconscious" (Jung, 1929/1968a, p. 45). Jung saw in the Gnostic(and Kabbalistic) symbol of Primordial Man a symbol of the goal of his ownana lytical psychology.

Jun g's Interpretation of AlchemyJung provided a similar if more daring and far-reaching interpretation ofalchemy. According to Jung, wh at the alchemist sees in ma tter, and un derstan ds inhis formulas for the transmutation of metals and the derivation of the primamateria, "is chiefly the data of his ow n uncon scious which he is projecting into it"(Jung, 1937/1968c, p. 228). For example, the alchemist's efforts to bring about aunion of opposites in the laboratory and to perform what is spoken of as a"chymical wedding" are understood by Jung as attempts to forge a unity, forexample, between masculine and feminine, or good and evil aspects of the psyche(Jung, 1937/1968c). "The alchemical opus," Jung wrote, "deals in the main notjust with chemical experiments as such, but with something resembling psychicprocesses expressed in pseudochemical language" (Jung, 1944/1968b, p. 242).In his Mysterium Coniunctionis, Jung (1955-1956/1963) provided a catalogueof alchemical symbols that are rich in spiritual and psychological significance.Many of the most significant of these symbols, including the notions of AdamKadmon, the divine spark in humanity, the union of the cosmic King and Queen,and the divine nature of evil (each of which Jung regarded as foundational for hislater psychology), were imported into alchemy from the Kabbalah.


8/17

JUNG AND THE KABBALAH 109The Kabbalah and Alchemy

Jung himself was aware of the strong relationship between the Kabbalah andlate alchemy, and he frequently spoke of specific Kabbalfstic influences on thealchemists of the 16th century and later. "Directly or indirectly," Jung (1955-195671963) wrote in the Mysterium, "the Cabala was assimilated into alchemy.Relationships must have existed between them at a very early date, though it isdifficult to trace them in the sources" (p. 24; cf. p. 384). Jung pointed out that bythe end of the 16th century the alchemists began m aking direct quotations from theZohar. For example, he provided a quotation from Blasius Vigenerus (1523-1596)comparing the feminine Sefirah Malchut with the moon turning its face from theintelligible things of heaven (Jung, 1955-1956/1963, p. 24). He pointed to anumber of alchemists, including Khunrath and Dorn, who mad e extensive use ofthe Kabbalistic notion of Adam Kadmon as early as the 16thcentury, and statedthat works by Reuchlin (D e Arte Kabalistica, 1517) and Mirandola had made theKabbalah accessible to non-Jews at that time (Jung, 1955-1956/1963; see alsoReuchlin, 1983). Both Vigenerus and Knorr Von Rosenroth, Jung said, attemptedto relate the alchemical notion of the lapis or philosopher's stone to passages in theZolnar that interpret biblical verses (Job 38:6, Isaiah 28:16, Genesis 28:22) asmaking reference to a stone with essential, divine, and transformative powers(Jung, 1955-1956/1963). He also noted that Paracelsus ha d introduced thesapphire as an "arcanum" into alchemy from the Kabba lah. Two of the alchemistsmost frequently quoted by Jung (Knorr and Khunrath) wrote treatises on theKabbalah, and others, such as Dorn and Lully, were heavily influenced byKabbalistic ideas. These a uthors included a notion of the "sparks," which was tobecome a key element in the Lurianic Kabbalah, and gave it a Kabbalistic (asopposed to Gnostic) interpretation in their wo rk.Although Jung clearly recognized the relationship between the Kabbalah andalchemy, he provided us with only part of the story. The spiritual aspects ofalchemy, which interested Jung , were to a very large extent Jewish in origin. EvenJung's own view of alchemy appears to have its origins in Jewish sources. Mariathe Prophetess, the Egyptian Hellenistic Jewess who was regarded by Zosimos(3rd century) to be the founder of alchemy (andby modem scholarship to beamong its earliest practitioners), viewed the alchemical work as fundamentally aprocess through which the adept attain spiritual perfection (Patai, 1994). Mariaregarded the various metals in the alchemical work to be analogous to aspects ofhumanity, hence her famous maxim "Join the male and the female and you willfind what is sought" (Patai, 1994,p. 66), an aphorism that could well serve as amotto for much of Jung's own interpretation of alchemy.Space limitations prevent me from providing a nything like a full survey of theKabbalistic sources of the spiritual side of alchemy. The interested reader isreferred to works by Suler (1972) and Patai (1994).

Jung 's Understanding of the K abbalahJung brought the same interpretive posture to the Kabbalah that he had brought

to Gnosticism and alchemy, but his approach to the Kabbalistic tradition was farless systematic, and his views on this tradition must occasionally be piecedtogether from his discussions of parallel Gnostic and alchemical ideas. Among theKabbalistic notions that were of significance to Jung (or are significant from a


9/17

110 DROBJungian perspective) are Ein-Sof (the Infinite), Tzimtzum (Divine Contraction),Adam Kadmon (Primordial Man), Shevirat ha-Kelim (the Breaking of the Vessels),Kellipot (Shells or Husks), the separation of the King and-Queen, Tikkun ha-Olam(the Restoration of the World), and Partzufim (Visages). I discuss each of these inturn.Ein-sof (the Infinite) is the limitless, unkn owa ble, creative source of all being,which is the union of everything and its opposite. Jung had interpreted theGnostics' pleroma, a conception of the divine that is essentially equivalent to theKabbalists' Ein-sof, as the infinite, unknowable depths of the collective uncon-scious. For Jung (1955-1956/1963), Ein-sof, like the pleroma, is the chaoticunknown that un ites within itself all contrasts and oppositions and which human ityreturns to time and aga in as the wellspring of creativity and desire.Tzimtzum (Divine Contraction) is, according to the Lurianists, the conceal-ment, negation, and withdrawal of God's presence that "makes room" for theworld. The Lurianists invoked this symbol as a vehicle of transition from aninfinite God to the finite world. Accordingly, the original act of creation was anegation in which the Infinite contracts and conceals itself from itself in order tobring about a finite realm. Jung made no mention of Tzimtzum; however, thisnotion of self "contraction" and "concealment" can readily be understoodpsychologically as an archetypal limitation or repression that separates the egofrom the unconscious.Adam Kadmon (Primordial Man) embodies the 10 value archetypes (Sefirot)through which the world was created. Jun g reflected in detail on this Kabbalisticnotion, noting that a cosmic primordial man is a symbol that appears in m any ofthe world's myths of creation. For Jun g, Adam Kadmon is a symbol of the "self"(Jung, 1955-1956/1963, p. 50), as it unites within itself the full range of values(the Sefirot) through which both the world and humankind were created. It isimportant to note that, for the Kabbalists, Adam Kadmon is in a constant state oftransformation and renewal and only fully becomes himself subsequent to the"Breaking of the Vessels" and their reconstruction in Tikkun. It is thus no w onderthat Jung equated Adam Kadmon with the alchemists' M ercurius (Jung, 1955-1956/1963, pp. 10, 394; Jung, 1937/1968c, p. 319) and regarded Adam Kadmon as animportant symbol of psychological transformation (Jung , 1955-1956/1963, p. 429).Sevirat ha-Kelim (the Breaking of the Vessels) is an archetypal event in whichthe value archetypes were shattered and distributed throughout the cosmos as"sparks." Jung , as we ha ve seen, was fascinated by the Kabbalistic symbols of theBreaking of the Vessels and Tikkun (the vessels' "repair") when he chanced onthese ideas in 1954. For him, they represented the role that humankind must play inthe restoration of the w orld, the redemption of evil, and the restoration of the self.However, even prior to that time Jung ha d encountered these notions in theiralchemical guises, as the chaos and destruction that must precede the alchemicalwork, and which Jun g understood as prerequisites for the forging of a unified self.Kellipot (Shells or Husks) entrap the sparks of divine light, prevent them fromserving their purpose in creation, and give rise to the nega tive realm know n as theSitra Achra, or "Other Side." According to the Kabbalists, this evil realm isnevertheless part of the divine plenum and must be given its due. The Kabbalisticnotion of the "Other Side" has its Jungian equivalent in the archetype of theShadow. The Kabbalists regarded the Other Side as a necessary part of the divine


10/17

JUNG AND THE KABBALAH 111plan and , like Jung, held that the ind ividual's baser instincts must be integrated intohis or her being rather than rejected or repressed. W e read in the Zohar:

Mark this! As Job kept evil separate from good and failed to fuse them, he wasjudged accordingly; first he experienced good, then w hat was evil, then again good.For man should be cognizant of both good an d evil, an d turn evil itself into good.This is a deep tene t to faith. (Sperling & S imon, 1931-1934, Vol. 3, p. 109)

Compare this to Jung's assertion that "A safe foundation is found only when theinstinctive premises of the unconscious win the same respect as the views of theconscious mind" (Jung, 1929/1967, p. 48).The separation of the King and Queen was understood by the Kabbalists tosymbolize a split betwee n the masculine and fem inine elements of the deity, wh ichitself reflects the disorder and chaos of a broken world. For the Kabbalists, thedisharmony of the world is reflected in a separation between male and female, andthe world's restoration and repair is symbolized by a wedd ing between Tifereth andMalchuth, the masculine an d feminine Sefirot, known in the Kabbalah as the HolyOne and his Bride. Jung, of course, interpreted these ideas psychologically andsaw them as symbols of the union between animus and anima, which in theindividual psyche is a prerequisite for individuation and psychological growth.Jung explored the Kabbalistic symbols of the divine marriage extensively (Jung,1955-1956/1963, pp. 23,24, 396,432-445, see especially p. 442; Jung, 1973, Vol.1, p. 356, Vol. 2, p. 292) and , as we shall see, himself had dream s and v isions thatincorporated these Jewish ideas.Tikkun ha-Olam (the Restoration of the World) is the process through whichhumanity repairs the world in the service of a "second creation."According to theLurianists, one result of the Breaking of the Vessels is the depositing of a hiddendivine spa rk in the soul of each individua l and, in the K abbalistic (bu t not Gn ostic)view, in the heart of all earthly things. For the Kabbalists, the purpose of Tikkun,the Restoration of the World, is for individuals to "raise" and redeem the sparkswithin both themselves and the world, in order that both hum ankind and the worldcan actualize their fullest, divine potential. Jung considered the theory of the"sparks," or "scintillae," as they appeared in Gnosticism, the Kabbalah (Jung,1955-1956/1963, p. 301, n. 26), and alchemy, and concluded that they representedan element of the primordial, archetypal unconscious in man (Jung, 1955-1956/1963, p. 491). Unfortunately, he was apparently unaw are of the development of the"sparks" symbol in later Kab balah and H asidism, w here, in contrast to the G nosticunderstanding of the sparks as a vehicle for escape from the world and self (Jung,1955-1956/1963, p. 48, and p. 48, n. 55), they are understood as an opportunity forthe development of the person and the spiritualization of the world. The Hasidimbelieve that each ind ividual is placed on ea rth because there are sparks both withinhis or her own soul and the world that only that individual can redeem. In raisingthe sparks, male and female are reunited, and creation is completed and perfected.The Partzufim (Visages) are understood by the Lurianists to be a plurality ofarchetypal personas through w hich the Primordial M an m ust evolve in the processof Tikkun. For Jun g, the notion of the raising of the sparks and the en tire process ofTikkun would have been ideal symbols fo r individuation. That the process ofTikkun gives rise to, and causes the Primordial Man to embody, archetypalpersonalities (the Holy Ancient One, the Father, the Mother, the Impulsive Male,


11/17

112 DROBand the Female), each of which has a role in Tikkun and which clearly anticipateJung's major archetypes, is further proof of the fit between the Lurianic Kabbalahand the Jungian "Self."

The Kabbalah, Gnosis, and Jungian PsychologyRegardless of the direction of influence, it is clear that nearly all of the basicsymbols and ideas of Gnosticism are to be found in one form or another in theKabbalah and vice versa. The notion of an unknowable infinite godhead thatcontains within itself a coincidence of metaphysical opposites, the gradualmanifestation of the Infinite through an emanation of logoi or Sefirot, the notion ofa cosmic accident giving birth to the manifest world, the distinction between theGod of the Bible and the true Infinite, the estrangement of humankind from its trueessence, and the entrapment of a divine spark within the individual's materialnature are all themes that found their w ay into both Gnosticism and the Kabbalah.Yet for all the similarities between Gnostic and Kabbalistic doctine, certainessential differences emerge that are of ultimate significance for Jungian psychol-ogy. The major difference is that Gnosticism has no equivalent concept or symbolfor the Kabba listic n otion of Tikkun ha-Olam, the Restoration of the World. As wehave seen, for the Gnostics (as well as for Jung in the Septem Sermones) , the goalof spiritual life is not a restoration but an escape from wha t they regard to be thisworthless, evil world. The Gnostic identifies with the divine spark within the selfin order to transcen d the physical self an d the material w orld.The K abba list holds a radically different view. Although there are also escapistor "Gnostic" trends w ithin the K abbalah, the majority of Kabbalists hold that the

realization of the divine spark both in the person and the material world bringsabout an elevation, restoration, and spiritualization of the individual and theenvironment. In Gnosticism the world is escaped; in the Kabbalah it is elevatedan d restored. The latter view is one that is much more congenial to Jungianpsychology, not only on the obvious principle that fo r Jungians life in this world,and the world itself, is worthwhile, but also with respect to the (less obvious)psychological interpretation which Jung placed on the Gnostic myths. As Segal(1992) pointed out, the Gnostic ethic, as interpreted by Jung, would, strictlyspeaking, lead to a complete identification of the subject with the unconsciousmind. This is because the Gnostic attempts to escape from the world (which Jungequates with the ego) into a complete identification with the infinite pleromawhich, as we have seen, Jun g identified with the collective unconscious.By way of contrast, for the Kabbalists and Jung (and the alchemists asinterpreted by Jung), the godhead creates the world and humankind in order tofully realize itself. By analogy, the unconscious mind manifests itself in aconscious, reflective ego in order to complete and know itself as a "self." "Thedifference" Jung wrote, "between the natural individuation process, w hich run s itscourse unconsciously, and the one w hich is consciously realized is tremendous: inthe first case consciousness nowhere intervenes; the end remains as dark as thebeginning" (Jung, 1952/1969a, p. 468). For Jung and the alchemists, the world,and its psychological equivalent, the ego, far from being the superfluous, harm ful,and lamentable conditions envisioned by the Gnostics, are actually necessary,beneficial, and laudable (Segal, 1992). Both God and humankind must passthrough the world and redeem it in order to realize their full essence. This is


12/17

JUNG AND THE KABBALAH 113precisely the view of the Kabbalists, as expressed in their symbol of Tikkunha-Olam. Gnosticism actually advocates the precise opposite of Jungian psychol-ogy (Segal, 1992).It is interesting that the alchemists are far m ore com patible with Jung (and theKabbalah) on this crucial point than are the Gnostics. The raison d'etre of alchemyis the transformation of worldly matter (Segal, 1992), not the escape from it. ForGnosticism the dissolution of the world is an end in itself; for the alchemists it is aprecondition for a new creation, ju st as in the Kabbalah the S hevirat ha-Kelim, theBreaking of the Vessels and destruction of earlier worlds, sets the stage for thewo rld's redemption in Tikkun ha-Olam.Jung is more Kabbalistic than Gnostic on a number of other crucial points aswell. For example, according to the Gnostics, the demiurge, or creator God, (theGod archetype in Jung) is thoroughly evil, whereas fo r Jung (and the Kabbalah) itrepresents both good and evil, persona and shadow, a coincidence of opposites.Quispel (cited in Segal, 1992, p. 236) wrote that the

fundamentally Jungian interpretation, according to which the representation ofGod, and thus the godhead, encompasses both good an d evil, has no ana logy in theGnostic sources. It is not Gn ostic at all. One ca n call it magical, but only m agic w itha Jewish foundation.Indeed, Gnosticism preaches a radical dualism of good immateriality and evilma tter; whereas fo r Jung, as for the Kabba lah, good and evil originate (and end ) inthe same source, are mutually d ependent on one another, and are not simply to beidentified with spirit and matter. Had Jung been m ore familiar with the Kabbalah,particularly in its Lurianic form, he would have found a system of mythical

thought that was far more compatible with his own psychology than wasGnosticism. In 1954, shortly after his discovery of the Lurianic Kab balah and afteressentially completing Mysterium Coniunctionis, Jung all but acknowledged thispoint of view. In a letter to James Kirsch (16 Februa ry 1954) he w rote:The Jew has the advantage of having long since anticipated the development ofconsciousness in his own spiritual history. By this I mean the Lurianic stage of theKabbalah, the breaking of the vessels and man's help in restoring them. Here thethought emerges for the first time that man must help God to repair the damagewrought by creation. For the first time man's cosmic responsibility is acknowl-edged. (Jung, 1973, Vol. 2, p. 155)

For Jung, in contrast to the Gnostics, man is not enjoined to escape the world (andhis conscious life w ithin it) but rather is responsible for its repair and restoration. Itis this notion of world restoration, what the Kabbalists referred to as Tikkunha-Olam, that most connects Jung to the Jewish mystical tradition and that clearlydistinguishes him from Gnosticism.Jun g's K abbalistic V ision

Jung appears to ha ve had a personal experience of the Kabb alah that we nt farbeyond his scholarly interests. In his Memories , Dreams and Reflections, Jung(1961) recorded a series of visions that he described as "the most tremendousthings I have ever experienced."The visions occurred in 1944 w hen Jung, nearingthe end of his seventh decade, w as stricken w ith a heart attack and "hung on the


13/17

114 DROB

edge of death" (p. 289). They involve the divine wedding between Tifereth an dMalchuth, which, in the Kabbalah,are the masculine and feminine divine principles.Jung described these visions as occurring in a state of wakeful ecstasy, "asthough I were floating in space, a s though I were safe in the wom b of the universe"(p. 293). He further described his experience as one of indescribable "eternalbliss." He reported:Everything around me seemed enchanted. At this hour of the night the nursebrought me some food she had warmed . . . For a time it seemed to me that she wa san old Jewish wo ma n, much older than she actually was, and that she was preparingritual kosher dishes for me. When I looked at her, she seemed to have a blue haloaround he r head. I myself was, so it seemed, in the Pardes Rimmonim, the garden ofpomegranates, and the wedding of Tifereth with Ma lchuth was taking place. Or elseI was Rabbi Simon ben Jochai, whose wedding in the afterlife was beingcelebrated. It was the mystic marriage as it appears in the Cabbalistic tradition. Icannot tell y ou how wonderful it was. I could only think continually, "Now this isthe garden of pomegranates! Now this is the marriage of M alchuth w ith Tifereth!" Ido not know exactly what part I played in it. At bottom it was I m yself: I wa s themarriage. And my beatitude was mat of a blissful wedding. (Jung, 1961, p. 294)

Jung related that the vision changed and there followed "the Marriage of theLamb" in Jerusalem, with angels and light. "I myself," he recorded, "was themarriage of the lamb." In a final image Jung found himself in a classicalamphitheater situated in a landscape of a verdant chain of hills. "Men and womendancers came on-stage, and up on a flower-decked couch All-father Zeus consum-mated the mystic marriage, as it is described in the Iliad" (Jung, 1961, p. 294). As aresult of these experiences, Jung developed the impression that this life is but a"segment of existence." During the visions, past, present, and future fused intoone. According to Jung, "the visions and experiences were utterly real; there wasnothing subjective about them" (p . 295).It is remarkable that Jung, in what he described as the most tremendous and"individuating" experience of his life, should find himself in the "garden ofpomegranates," an allusion to a Kabbalistic work of that name by MosesCordovero, an d that he should identify himself with the coniunctio of Tifereth an dMalchuth as it is described in the Kabbalah. In this vision, which can only bedescribed as Kabbalistic, Jung further identified himself with Rabbi Simeon benYochai, who in Jewish tradition is regarded as the author of the Zohar. Here, on thebrink of death, Jung had a mystical experience in wh ich the truth of the Kabbalisticwed ding is equated w ith the truth of the hierosgamos, the divine wedding in Greekmythology. The sexual union of male and fem ale is mystically experienced as thesource of both immortality and personal ind ividuation and redemption. Accordingto Jung , such experience involves an "objective cognition" in which all emotionalties, "relationships of desire, tainted by coercion and constraint," are transcendedin favor of a real coniunctio, a relationship with oneself, others, an d the world thatis beyond, yet also behind, desire. Only after this Kabbalistic experience w as Jungable to compose the Mysterium Coniunctionis and other major works of his finalyears (Jung, 1961).Given Jung's familiarity with Kabbalistic ideas and symbols, the profoundlypsychological nature of the Kabbalah, and Jung's own Kabbalistic visions, onemight ask w hy he never developed a sustained inquiry into the Kabbalah as he d id


14/17

JUNG AND THE KABBALAH 115with regard to Gnosticism and, especially, alchemy. There are several reasons fo rthis. In the first place, as Jung himself noted, he did not Tcnow Hebrew and wasunfamiliar with the relevant sources, most of which in his day had been neithertranslated nor even summarized into languages w ith which Jung was familiar.It is more significant that, in spite of Jung's protestations that he was neithermetaphysician nor theologian, his major concern in his later works was apsychological revivification of Christianity through a study of its undercurrents,Gnosticism and alchemy, which he un derstood as the compensatory "shadow" toofficial religion. Although Jung held that the Kabbalah played a similar role vis avis orthodox Judaism, as a Christian this was of peripheral interest to him. True,there was a Christian Kabbalah (of which Knorr was an example), but to Jung theKabbalah was essentially Jewish in origin and import.Finally, and perhaps most significant, Jung maintained a strong a mbivalencetoward Jews and Judaism, which, at least during a critical point in his career, mayhave compromised his receptivity to Jew ish ideas.

Jung and JudaismAs is well known, Jung was originally placed by Freud in the unenviableposition of playing guarantor that psychoanalysis would not be looked on as a"Jewish national affair." According to Jung, after the two parted ways, Freudaccused him of antisemitism because Jung could not abide with Freud's "soullessmaterialism" (Jung, 1973, Vol. 1, p. 162). The relationship w ith Freud appears tohave colored Jung's view of Judaism, as Jung's later identification of psychoanaly-sis as a Jewish psychology inapplicable to Europeans appears to have in part been

fueled by his competitiveness with and personal animosity toward Freud(McLynn, 1996; see Jung, 1934/1970).Although the controversy regarding Jung's personal and professional stancewith regard to the Nazis during the 1930s is beyond the scope of this discussion(see Jaffe, 1971, and M cLynn , 1996), it is important to recall that during this periodJung expressed certain negative views about "Jewish psychology." In the 1930s,during the rise of Nazi antisemitism, Jung chose to highlight what in his view werethe differences between Jewish and German psychology (Jung, 1934/1970). Hisstatements were un derstood by ma ny to be a ntisemitic and as playing directly intothe hands of those who would view Jews as a threat to, or parasites on, Germanyand other European states.Jung's observations that the "Jewish race as a whole . . . possesses anunconscious w hich can be compared with the 'Aryan' only with reserve" and that"the Aryan unconscious has a higher potential than the Jewish" (Jung 1934/1970p. 166) were seen as reinforcing Nazi ideology (despite a context that could beunderstood as praising the Jewish mind in other respects). Furthermore, in hispolemic against Freud, Jung, as early as 1928, wrote that "it is quite anunpardonable mistake to accept the conclusions of a Jewish psychology asgenerally valid" (Jung, 1928/1966, p. 148, n. 8, see also Jung 1934/1970, p. 544).In a letter to B. Cohen he later explicitly stated: "In so far as [Freud's] theory isbased in certain respects on Jew ish premises, it is not valid for non-Jews" (Jung,1973, Vol. l,p. 154).It was during the period of Jung's early, and perhaps greatest, involvementwith alchemy that he chose to distance the Western/Christian psyche from


15/17

116 DROBJudaism. In 1935 Jung wrote to Erich Neumann (who had written to Jung aboutJudaism) that "analytical psychology has its roots in the Christian middle ages,and ultimately in Greek philosophy, with the connecting link being alchemy"(Jung , 1973, Vol. 1, p. 206). Given Jung 's need in the 1930s to distinguish h isChristian/Western psychology from the Jewish psychology of Freud, one w onderswhether Jung underemph asized the huge impact of Judaism (via the Kabbalah) onalchemy and thereby on his own thinking. It is not until after World War II thatJung began to make numerous references to the Kabbalah and noted theimportance of the Kabbalah for alchemy.I do not know for a fact that Jung suppressed the Jewish mystical origins ofsome of his ideas. However, given his polemic against Freud, his characterizationsof the Jewish psyche, his desire to distinguish his psychology from "Jewishpsychology," and the situation in Europe during the 1930s, he had a powerfulmotive for doing so. If indeed Jung ha d consciously or unconsciously suppressedthe Jewish mystical sources of some of his ideas, his Kabbalistic visions during hisapparently mortal illness in 1944 can be understood (in Jungian terms) as apowerful compensation for that suppression or , more generally, as an atonementfor his anti-Jewish writings and sentiments.It is important to note that Jung's attitude toward Judaism, even in the 1930s,was by no mea ns always pejorative. During that period Jung steadfastly defend edhimself against any accusations of antisemitism and worked to prevent Jewishpsychotherapists from being pushed out of their profession. He defended his rightto point out the unique features of Jewish psychology, as he had done, fo r example,with respect to the Indians and Chinese, and insisted that his views on Jewishpsychology long antedated the rise of National Socialism in Germany (Jung1934/1970), though he seemed to forget his earlier view that on the deepestpsychological level it is "impossible to distinguish between an Aryan, Semitic,Hamitic or Mongolian mentality, [as] all human races have a common collectivepsyche" (Jung, 1928/1966, p. 149, n. 8). Even in his 1934 article, Jung(1934/1970) held that the Jewish mind had a greater consciousness and was moredifferentiated than the Aryan, and, in a letter to Aaron Roback, held that Jews havean extension into their ow n subconscious that is rare am ong non -Jews (Jung, 1973,Vol. 1, p. 224).Although it is clear that Jung regretted even the appearance of having flirtedwith N ational S ocialism (Jaffe, 1971; McLynn, 1996), he never, as far as I can tell,provided a full and satisfactory accounting of his earlier views on Jewishpsychology. His disciple and confidante, Aniela Jaffe (1971), later wrote thatJung's early statements about the Jewish mind "spring from a lack of comprehen-sion of Jud aism and Je wish culture w hich is scarcely intelligible today" (p. 85). Ina letter to Jaffe, Gershom Scholem related that after the war Jung was confrontedby the Jewish scholar Leo Baeck on these matters, and the two ultimately madepeace after Jung's confession that he had "slipped up." This, S cholem related, wassufficient fo r both Baeck and Scholem to, in effect, forgive Jung an d continue theirrelationship.I am deeply troubled by Jung's apparent duplicity and opportunism withrespect to what he himself termed the "Jewish question." However, none of theabove considerations should, in my opinion, prevent us from either appreciatingthe affinities between the Kabbalah and the position at which Jung eventually


16/17

JUNG AND THE KABBALAH 117arrived, or in noting the influence of Kabbalistic ideas both directly and indirectly(through alchemy) on Jungian psychology. Nor should these considerationsprevent us from embarking on the fascinating task of examining the vastKabbalistic literature that has come to light in the past 60 years from a Jungianperspective and thereby enriching our understanding of both the Kabbalah and ourown psyches.As I have attempted to show, Jung's relationship to the Kabbalah ismultitextured, if somewhat unsettling. The story of Jung and Jewish mysticism isone, I believe, that is only beginning to be told and understood.

ReferencesAltizer, T. J. (1959). Science and Gnosis in Jung's psychology. Centennial Review, 3, 304.Buber, M. (1952). Eclipse of God (ML S. Friedman, Trans.) New York: Harper & Row.Dourley, J. P. (1994). In the shadow of the monotheisms: Jung's conversations with Buber

and White. In J. Ryce-Menuhin (Ed.), Jung and the monotheisms (pp. 125-148).London: Routledge.Elior, R. (1993). The paradoxical ascent to God:The Kabbalistic theosophy of HabadHasidism (J. M. Green, Trans.). Alban y: State University of New York Press.Filoramo, G. (1990).A history of Gnosticism (A. Alcock, Trans.). Cambridge, England:Basil Blackwell.Idel, M. (1988). Kabbalah: New perspectives. New Haven , CT: Yale University Press.Idel, M. (1995). Psychologization of theosophy in Kabbalah an d Hasidism. In Hasidism,between ecstasy and magic (pp. 227-238). Albany: State University of New YorkPress.Jacobs, L. (1987). The uplifting of the sparks in later Jewish mysticism. In A. Green (Ed.),Jewish spirituality: From th e sixteenth-century revival to the present (pp. 99-126).New York: Crossroad.Jaffe, A. (1971). C. G. Jung's national socialism. In A. Jaffe (Ed.), From the l i f e and work ofC. G. Jung (R. F. C. Hull, Trans., pp . 78-98). New York: Harper.Jung, C. G. (1961). M emories , dreams, reflections (recorded and edited by Aniela Jaffe).New York: Rand om House.Jung, C. G. (1963). C. G. Jung collected works: Mysterium coniunctionis (Vol. 14, R. F. C.Hull, Trans.) Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published1955-1956)Jung, C. G. (1966). C. G. Jung collected works: The relations betw een the ego and theunconscious (Vol.7, R. F. C. Hull, Trans., pp. 121-239). Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press. (Original work published 1928)Jung, C. G. (1967). C. G. Jung Collected Works: Alchemical Studies (Vol. 13, R. F. C. Hull,Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton Un iversity Press. (Original work published 1929)Jung, C. G. (1968a). Commentary on "The Secret of the Golden Flower." In C. G. Jungcollected works: Alchemical studies (Vol. 13, R. F. C. Hull, Trans., pp. 1-56).Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1929)Jung, C. G. (1968b). C. G. Jung collected works: Psychology and alchemy (Vol. 12 ,R. F. C. Hull, Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original workpublished 1944)Jung, C. G. (1968c). Religious ideas in alchemy. In C. G. Jung collected works:Psychology and alchemy (Vol. 12, R. F. C. Hull, Trans., pp. 225-246). Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1937)Jung, C. G. (1969a). Answer to Job. In C. G. Jung collected works: Psychology an dreligion; West and East (Vol.11, R. F. C. Hull, Trans., pp. 355^70). Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1952)


17/17

118 DROBJung, C. G. (1969b). Gnostic symbols of the self. In C. G. Jung collected works: Aion:Researches into the phenomenology of the self (Vol. 9, R. F. C. Hull, Trans., pp.184-221). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1951)Jung, C. G. (1970). The state of psychotherapy today. In C. G. Jung collected w orks:Civilization in transition (Vol. 10, R. F. C. Hull, Trans., pp. 157-173). Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press. (Original w ork published 1934)Jung, C. G. (1973). Letters (Vol. 1 & 2, G. Adler, A. Jaffe, & R. F. C. Hull, Eds.). Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press.McLynn, F. (1996). Carl Gustav Jung. New York: St. M artin's Press.Patai, R. (1994). The Jewish alchemists. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Reuchlin, J. (1983). On the Art of the Kabbalah (M . Goodman & S. Goodman , Trans.).Lincoln: Un iversity of Nebraska Press.Robinson, J. M. (Ed.). (1988). The Nag Hammadi library (3rd"ed.). San Francisco: Harper& R o w .Rudolph, K. (1987). Gnosis: The nature and history of Gnosticism (R. M. W ilson, Trans.).San Francisco: Harper. (Original work published 1980)Schochet, J. (1981). Mystical concepts in Chassidism. In S. Zalman (Ed.), LikuteiAmarim-Tanya (pp. 820-894). Brooklyn, NY: Kehot.Scholem, G. (1960). Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabeh mysticism and Talmudic tradition. NewYork: Schocken.Scholem, G. (1961). Major trends in Jewish m yst icism. New York: Schocken. (Originalwork published 1941)Scholem, G. (1973). Sabbatai Sevi: The mystical messiah. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.Scholem, G. (1974). Kabballah. Jerusalem: Keter.Scholem, G. (1987). Origins of the Kabbalah (R. J. Zwi Werblowski, Trans.). Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1962)Segal, R. A. (1992). The Gnostic Jung. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Sperling, H., & Simon, M . (1931-1934). Th e Zohar. London: S oncino Press.Suler, B. (1972). Alchemy. In Encyclopedia Judaica (Vol. 2, p. 546). Jerusalem: Keter.Tishby, I., & Lachower, F. (1989). The wisdom of the Zohar: An anthology of texts, I, II, &III (D. Goldstein, Trans.). Oxford, England: Oxfo rd Un iversity Press.Wilson, R. M. (1974). Jewish "Gnosis" an d Gnostic origins: A survey. Hebrew UnionCollege Annual, 45, 179-189.

Received October 7, 1997Revision received Novem ber 24, 1998Accepted December 29, 1998

Documents

Jung and the Kaballah