It is clear now that the issue is epistemology—what one can and cannot know. And Jung is saying he himself is following the eighteenth-century philosopher Immanuel Kant who perceived that everything we know is limited by mental categories, that we are always caught inside our subjectivity. This means that we can never know something “as it is”

For the East to insist that matters such as these have to do with the religious life tells us that in traditional India, Tibet, China, and Japan there is no serious difference between religion and what we call depth psychology. Their attitude offers hope that the gap existing in the West between these two very different and even antagonistic points

We are told by the traditional East that this is a religious story having to do with the attainment of Release (say the Hindus) or Enlightenment (say the Buddhists) freeing one from human suffering. Yet from the point of view of the modern West it is clearly a psychological story having to do with the problem of perception: how it is that one’s eye

Let us consider some terms. “Civilization” is a difficult word to define although the presence of cities seems etymologically necessary (consider Latin, civitas, “citizen; citizens united; a city”). J. M. Roberts writes: “Some have said that a civilized society is different from an uncivilized society because it has a certain attribute—writing,

Even a superficial acquaintance with Eastern thought is sufficient to show that a fundamental difference divides East and West. The East bases itself upon psychic reality, that is, upon the psyche as the main and unique condition of existence. It seems as if this Eastern recognition were a psychological or temperamental fact rather than a result of

Jung says the same thing elsewhere in a different tone, acknowledging that Indian religion uses Sanskrit words that can be correctly translated as “ego” and “Self” (respectively, ahaṃkāra—pronounced uh-hum-KAR-uh—and ātman): We might therefore be inclined to assume that in India the metaphysical problem “man and God” has been shifted on to the

Buddhism, which originated in India, invites us to board either of its two main forms. They are called the Hīnayāna (“Little Vehicle”) or Mahāyāna (“Great Vehicle”) and are likened to rafts capable of “crossing the water” of worldly saṃsāra to reach the “far shore” of nirvāṇa.

The individual who is obliged to “realize the shadow”—to discover it consciously—gains, however, not only the personal satisfaction of becoming more honest but also becomes less touchy, not so defensive or inclined to know for certain what is right and wrong. A person who can acknowledge to some degree his or her shadow becomes more compassionate

Part of the difficulty of accepting Jung’s rank is that both Siddhārtha and Jesus still have projected onto them the central orienting archetype of the Self—which for Indians of the fifth century BCE was called “Buddha” and for the Jews of the first century CE was called “Christ.” C. G. Jung of the twentieth century, on the other hand, is just