THE ANALYTICAL PSYCHOLOGY OF JUNG AND THE AGAMIC PSYCHOLOGY OF MEYKANDAR

Dr.K.Loganathan, Universiti Sains Malaysia

Carl C. Jung, the founder of analytical psychology, had a fascination for Eastern thinking and an understanding of it that comes as a pleasant surprise for an Eastern man. His penetration into the deeper layers of human mind through his studies of mythologies, religious practices art, and so forth both East and West is, to say the least, a remarkable intellectual achievement comparable to the best in the Indian philosophical- psychological tradition. The conceptual categories he has introduced and the theoretical framework he has erected certainly provide a framework that a modern man can use to gain an understanding of the mysteries of the human mind. Of course the East, and in particular the Agamic/Tantric tradition in India as well as outside has been doing similar sort of thing from time immemorial. They have developed a variety of Sadhanas, experienced the outcomes (payan) of these Sadhanas and reflected upon the Structure of Reality, the nature of the creatures and so forth to account for the experienced connections between the Sadhanas and outcomes. This long and ancient tradition in India, coeval with the beginning of civilization itself finds its clearest and admirably logical formalization in the work of Meykandar (13th century). In the Sivajnanabodam of Meykandar we find the divisions 'potuvatikaram' and 'cirappatikaram' with the formar subdivided into 'piramanaviyal' and 'ilakanaviyal' and the latter into 'catanaviyal' and 'payaniyal'. The potuvatikaram deals with matters pertaining to the ontological, epistemological and meatphysical issues. The 'piramanaviyal' discusses the ontological issues from premises that are universally acceptable, and establishes the axiomatic TRUTHS and in the context of it the logically necessary and irreducible categories of objects for an adequate explanation of the objective, phenomenal world. Metaphysics is here articulated as the most comprehensive Hermeneutic Science.The 'Ilakkanaviyal' takes the discussion further and establishes the essential functional characteristics of the different ontologically fundamental categories of objects established earlier. The Catanaviyal deals with the practices, exercises, in short the psycho-techniques (called utties in Tamil) that are adequate and necessary from the point of view of categories of objects and their essential functional attributes established earlier and for the purposes of SEEING for oneself these fundamental ontological entities. The section on 'payaniyal' deals with the outcomes, results and so forth i.e. the nature of self-knowledge or understanding that is attained through these Sadhanas. The text as a whole thus, reveals a clear grasp of the formal structure of the behavioral or psychological sciences but as field of Hermeneutic Science, the clearest at any rate in the long intellectual history of India and perhaps also the world.

There is also another feature of Saiva Siddhanta tradition that clearly establishes the scientific character of the endeavour. The earlier agamic texts (including Jnanamirtham,circa 11th cent) that were divided into cariyai, kriyai, yogam and jnanam were descriptions of psycho-techniques deemed universally applicable. Under jnanam we have descriptions and discussions of universally valid aspects of human (and animal) behaviour, states of consciousness, techniques for attaining the different states of consciousness and so forth. We do not find any references to individuals and their experiences as the phenomena that requires the theoretical concepts introduced. Saiva Siddhanta developed during the times of the Imperial Cholas departs from all these. The life history of the nayanmars , the god-possessed baktas of Siva and in particular critical instances in their life ( as described for example in Periapuranam) were taken as the data, the phenomena that needed an explanation. The earlier texts in Saiva siddhanta tradition 'Tiruvunthiyar' and 'Tirukalirrupatiyar' (12th century) make continuos reference to the critical instances in the life of the nayanmars . The focus of analysis has not been the literary outpourings of the nayanmars (as it has been in the Vaishnava tradition in the Tamil country) but rather the life or the critical incidences in the life of the nayanmars. The record of the biographies of the nayanmars served a function very similar to case histories of patients in modern psychoanalysis.

Kallatanar (10 century) very clearly foumulated this intellectual temper, the scientific orientation as 'ulakiyal kURi porulial uraiththal'- establishing the nature of subjects after a naturalistic /scientific hermeneutic study of their behaviour and functional characteristics. (Kallatam, CeyyuL 13). Though this remark was made with reference to Thirukural, it is clear that at about the time he wrote these lines, there must have been considerable thinking about methodological issues that culminated in the birth of Saiva Siddhanta and along with it behavioural science proper as a field belonging to the general Hermeneutic sciences in the long intellectual history of man. An offshoot of this may the birth of medical science as a rigorous science that goes by the name of 'Siddha Vaidhyam'. An unbiased examination of the original texts of the master Siddhas reveals an impressive scientific spirit pervading the whole tradition.

All these are meant as preliminary remarks to indicate that a comparative study of Saiva Siddhanta and the Analytical Psychology of Jung is not a misplaced enterprise. Both are psychological systems in the narrow sense, teachings of ways of life (neri, markkam , camayam) in the broader sense. Jungian psychology is also chosen not only because it represents the most profound psychological system that the West has produced so far but also because there are remarkable convergences in thought, in principles and formulations of the nature of human mind. Jung talks of the psyche, as a substantive entity complex in itself and retaining identity in the evolutionary process without references to which human (and animal) behaviour cannot be adquately explained. This is similar to the concept of pasu (or anma) in Saiva Siddhanta, one of the three ultimate, irreducible object categories, uncreated and indestructible, complex in itself and the agent of the actions of the creatures . Jung also talks about archetypes (also called primordial images, gestalts, imago etc.) that influence the psychic functions of man (and animal) in important ways. This seems to correspond to Siddhantic concept of murthi (also termed uru, peruvativu, arulvativu, etc) which are also taken as important in shaping human behaviour. Corresponding to the characteristically Jungian notions of Personal and Collective Unconscious, we have the doctrines of different types of Karma and Siva-Sakti . In view of these essential correspondences a question arises as to whether these two systems, despite differences at the surface level, are in fact one basically. The studies being reported in this paper reveal that Jungian psychology though in line with the basic orientation of Saiva Siddhanta but is not as well developed as Saiva Siddhanta with an array of adequately differentiated basic categories. It appears to me that the important distinction between Karma and Pathi is obfuscated by Jung and lumped together under the very general notion of Collective Unconscious. The Fundamental Ontology that Meykandar has secured for Saiva Siddhanta appears to be a serious desideratum in the Jungian Psychology. This lack lead to a somewhat different conception of what constitute self-realisation, individuation and so forth. We shall now attend to these correspondences and differences in greater detail.

THE JUNGIAN SYSTEM
We shall begin with a brief account of the essentials of the Jungian system. Perhaps the most original and distinct contribution of Jung is the postulate of an entity called 'Collective Unconscious' (CU) as distinct from 'Personal Unconscious' (PU) that Freud introduced through his studies of dreams and the psychopathology of everyday life. The ego is that part of the psyche concerned with adapting itself to the perceived external social and material circumstances. But the psyche is larger than the Ego and contains an enormous hidden content that bursts into consciousness in dreams, fantasies, visions and so forth. These hidden contents are termed unconscious in the sense that though part of the psyche , the psyche is not aware of them under normal circumstances Jung divides this submerged part into the PU and CU on the basis of a variety of empirical studies. The PU is the 'forgotten, repressed, subliminally perceived, thought, and felt matter of every kind (cf. J. Jacobi p.6) and we should add, from the time of birth. It contains the infantile memories repressed and forgotten but which later emerge in consciousness causing different types of psychological disorders. This PU of Jung is thus, not materially different from the unconscious that Freud introduced into psychology. While the PU contains psychic elements become unconscious either due to withdrawal of consciousness or not having not enough intensity to gain access to consciousness, the CU is however materially different - it contains psychic elements that are 'the ancestral heritage of possibilities of representation' common to all men. It is a deeper layer, deeper than PU and also the true basis of the individual psyche. What led Jung to postulate the CU is the discovery from empirical studies of fantasies, visions and dreams of normal and abnormal people, motifs and themes strikingly similar to the contents of ancient and primitive mythologies, religious cults and so forth. To account for these similarities, he reasoned, there must be a deeper content of the Unconscious which is objective, impersonal and ubiquitous (hence, the name Collective). The primary mode in which the CU reveals itself is in the form of mythological motifs or primordial images, something like the Ideas of Plato. The term archetype is used as a technical term to describe these recurrent primordial images that is said to influence the human behaviour in all its forms.

Before we consider the concept of archetype more extensively and compare it with the concept of murttam in Saiva Siddhanta, it is best to consider another significant aspect of Jungian system viz., the analysis of the basic psychic functions.

The Basic Psychic Functions
Jung identifies thinking, feeling, intuition and sensation as the four basic psychological functions. The psychological function is understood as a 'form of psychic activity that remains theoretically the same under varying circumstances and is completely independent of its momentary contents' (cf., J. Jacobi, P.9). Consciousness through sense perception reveals the existence of the world but does not tell us what it is. Seeing what it is that is sensed as an-existent constitute for him as apperception process and is identified as the cognitive, arising from thinking as such. Associated with this apperception is what he calls a 'feeling-tone' that implies evaluation of some sort An object is now seen positively as pleasant, desirable and beautiful or negatively as unpleasant, disgusting, ugly and so forth. In addition to these, he also recognizes another, the 'intuitive process' as distinct from the above. Intuition is said to be a basic function of the psyche and consists in perceiving 'the possibilities inherent in a situation'. His theory of psychological types, considered a major contribution towards a better understanding of human personality, rests upon the four different psychic functions identified as above.
Thinking and Feeling are characterized as rational in the sense that they are judgments, evaluations and so forth with respect to certain norms. Thinking proceeds on the basis of logical consistency, correctness or incorrectness, true or false and so forth. Feeling proceeds on the basis of right and wrong, agreeable or disagreeable and so forth.

Sensation and Intuition, on the other hand, are termed non-rational psychic functions in the sense that they are non divisive or discursive with respect to some kind of norms. They are akin to opening doors, avenues for gaining entry into different realms of reality. Sensation reveals the non-apperceptive awareness of an external world of stimuli that affect the sense organs. It is the sense of reality par excellence. As opposed to the external, objective and material reality accessible as a common source to all, is a deeper reality equally objective but nor accessible through sensory channels alone. It is perception of possibility inherent in a situation that is sensed , the deeper significance, meaning of what is seen. Such a perception is akin to prophetic vision and is termed by Jung as Intuition.

All these psychic functions are present in a person but to varying degrees of dominance. The dominant psychic functions, determine what psychological type a person is, the characteristic manner he/she is likely to behave and so forth. It also determines the characteristic manner in which he /she will react under circumstances leading to psychological disorders.

A normal man is one who selects one these psychic functions and adapts himself to it. When the contents of the Unconscious bursts into consciousness during some subliminal or unusual states of awareness, the different psychological types will react to this rather differently determining the kind of abnormal behaviour he will have. Jung identifies the healthy man, the complete man as one who is aware of all these four different psychic functions inherent in him. Such a person would perceive an object objectively i.e. see as it is, without any projections gain access to its deeper, underlying significance and have a comprehensive view about it, evaluate it appropriately and behave towards it in a manner suitable, correct and so forth. Psychological growth is seen by Jung, as gaining mastery over all the four psychological functions. Instead of being a particular type with one only of the four dominant, the developed person should be capable of all four equally. The goal of psychotherapy is seen essentially as an endeavour to bring about this, freeing man from the clutches of one dominant psychic functions and making him capable of all. It is expanding his present psychic capacities to include all possible psychic functions so that his perceptions, cognitions and consciousness and so forth is better differentiated and discriminated.

Jung has written volumes on psychological functions and personality structure. His characterization of psychological types into extroverts, introverts, neurotics and so forth have gained wide currency. We shall stop our discussion of these matters with the above brief account, as there is a plan to deal with it more extensively at some other time. Since of immediate interest to the present study are the concepts of CU and archetype, we shall now consider their central characteristics with the view to comparing them with similar notions in Saiva Siddhanta.

Archetypes
As already mentioned earlier, archetypes are great 'primordial' images, 'the inherited powers of human imagination as it was from time immemorial' (c.w. vol.7, page 64). The archetype are also described as 'thought-forms' of humanity and are as much feeling as thought (ibid. page 65). Also it is stated that the greatest and best thoughts of man shape themselves upon these primordial images 'as upon a blue print'.

With respect to the origin of these archetypes Jung asserts that they are 'deposits of the constantly repeated experiences of humanity' (ibid. page 68). The archetype is a kind of readiness to produce repeatedly the same or similar mythological motifs. They are subjective fantasy-ideas activated in the unconscious by the recurrent physical processes. This kind of thinking about the origins of archetypes also leads him to say that it is possible for archetypes to exists even in animals. The archetypes are grounded in the species characteristics of the animals themselves and are therefore 'direct expressions of life whose nature cannot be further explained' (ibid. page 69). They emerge into human consciousness during dreams and similar states of consciousness when the cognitive and intellectual activity of the human mind are dulled. 'The images appear, when the psychic energy regresses and goes beyond the period of early infancy and breaks into the legacy of the ancestral life' (ibid. page 76). In an interesting note to this observation Jung mentions that he is deliberately extending the archetype by means of karmic factors and that the karma aspect is essential to the deeper understanding of the nature of the archetype. But unfortunately he does not develop the theme and it is not also clear what concept of karma he had in mind. However, this brief remark of Jung is extremely useful for it indicates that the Collective Unconscious is to be related to the karma either Sanjitha, Praartha or Agamiya that are available in Saiva Siddhanta and many Indian darsanas. This issue will be taken up later.

The view that archetypes are ancestral images deposited in the deep recesses of human (and animal) psyches may lead us to view them as passive factors without any potency for regulating behaviour. But this view is mistaken as the empirical studies would reveal. The archetypes act as agents that lead to experiencing reality repeatedly within these primordial motifs. They fascinate the human mind in a profound way or impel them to action. By studying the transference phenomena where an individual projects onto an object or a person an archetypal image (e.g. the doctor as a savior, father, lover and so forth) Jung discovered that archetypes behave like highly charged autonomous centers of power. They take possession of the human mind and alter the subject profoundly. The subject sees the other as the embodiment of the archetype projected onto him and behaves towards him as the projected archetype dictates. Because of the contents of the Collected Unconscious that are projected onto him, he loses his individuality as a person and in the eyes of the subject he is a God, a hero or a devil depending upon the archetype projected. Jung traces the onset of neuroses, schizophrenia and such mental disorders to such archetypal projections of the subject. Part of the psychiatric treatment consists in leading the subject to dissociate himself from the archetypes and see the persons and objects as an objective reality distinct from himself but with which he has identified as himself till then. The subject must liberate himself from the clutches of the Collective Unconscious and perceive them as ''that which is not' (ibid. page 72)

. The Archetype of Self
There are different types of archetypes. Though we do not find an extensive classificatory scheme employed by Jung, a broad hierarchical organization is noticeable. The gods and goddesses, nymphs, fairies, devils, witches, heroes, the asuras and so forth are one class of archetypes. As against all these is the archetype of Self, the central archetype or the archetype of wholesomeness. Just as the Ego is the organizing center of conscious contents of psychic life, the Self becomes the organizing center of the contents of the Collective Unconscious i.e., the archetypes that are ancestral heritages. As Edward F. Edinger (1973) interprets it, the Ego is the seat of subjective identity while the Self is the seat of objective identity. The Self is the supreme psychic authority and controls even the Ego. It is a major discovery of Jung that the self- the Imago Dei - the inner deity in every creature, reveals itself in some typical symbolic images that in the agamic tradition is known as mandalas. The MANDALA is a technical term in Jungian psychology. The mandalas predominate in the agamic tradition of East where the temples, stupas, viharas and the various yantras used for meditative practices are forms of it. The term, it should be noted is actually Tamil, a development from the root madi- meaning the folded, wrapped up, encircled and so forth. Jung, through an extensive study of world religious literature, art and architecture medieval alchemical texts found mandalas as a ubiquitous phenomenon revealing the symbolic presence of the Self. Jung sees Christ as the archetype of the Self. Christ is the true image of God, after whose likeness our inner man is made; He is invisible, incorporeal, incorruptible , immortal, the embodiment of all that is divine. The Christ is also a glorified man, a Son of God, sine macula peccati, unspotted by sin. (caw. volume 9, part II, page 70). The God -image in us reveals itself through 'prudentia, institia, moderatio, virtuo, supienta et disciplina'.

It must also be mentioned that Christ that Jung talks about is not the Christ of Christian theologians. The Christ of the Church 'lacks wholeness in the modern psychological sense, since it does not include the dark side of things but specifically excludes it in the form of a Luciferian opponent' (Ibid., page 70). The complete integrated Self is both Christ and anti-Christ, light and darkness, good and evil. We cannot separate the kingdom of heaven from the fiery world of the damned. The archetype Self cannot be without the shadow that belongs to the light and without this it would lack body and humanity. The self is a complexio oppositorum for there can be no reality without polarity. "We must not overlook the fact that opposites acquire their moral accentuation only within the sphere of human endeavour and action, and that we are unable to give a definition of good and evil; that would be considered universally. It must therefore, be supposed that they spring from a need of human consciousness outside the human sphere."(Ibid. page 266)

As we have already seen earlier the Ego in Western psychology is the center of conscious personality and hence, a part of the total psyche. The Self, on the other hand, is the most expanded Ego, an entity that has gained control or has it as elements of its consciousness that totality of the psychic contents. There is always a dynamic relationship between the Ego and Self, separating and uniting alternatively (E Edinger, page 5). This state of affairs presumably exists only as long as there are contents of Unconscious still not brought to the light of consciousness. When this happens, the distinction between the Ego and Self does not exist anymore. As Edinger observes, 'the conception of the Self is a paradox. It is simultaneously the center and the circumference of the circle of totality. Considering Ego and Self as two separate entities is merely a necessary rational device for discussing these things'. (Ibid. page 6).

Before we close our discussion of Jung's concept of archetype, it is necessary to point out a distinction that he draws between the archetype in itself and the FORM of an archetype. The archetype is the image, a content of deeper recesses of the human mind, a complex of many personal and transpersonal elements that powerfully channel the psychic functions of man. When we abstract from this the pure structure, the pure form, the organization in itself of which the particular archetype is an expression then we have the Archetype Form. "The form of these archetypes" observes Jung, "is perhaps comparable to the axial system of a crystal, which predetermines as it were the crystalline formation in the saturated solution without itself possessing a material existence. This existence first manifests itself in the way the ions and then the molecules arrange themselves..... The axial system determines, accordingly, merely the stereometric structure, not, however, the concrete form of the individual crystal, ... and just so the archetype possesses ... an invariable core of meaning that determines its manner of appearing always only in principle, never concretely" (Cf,J. Jacobi, page 44). This rather illuminating analogy, interestingly enough has also been given by many Siddhas not only to archetypes but also to many other objects. It also points to a striking similarity with the tantric concept of Bindu- the 'seed' of all forms. The Form of mother archetype i.e. the Mother, is pure structure, pre-existent and the formative principle of every phenomenal expression of the motherly . It is transpersonal, universal, invariant across time and space, an identical core of meaning whether man or women, human or animal, primitive or developed, modern or ancient. This is the 'ambal' - the Great Mother, the constant core of meaning across of myriads of manifestations such as Durga, Uma , Saraswathy, Laxmi and so forth.

The Collective Unconscious
Jung relates the psychic structure and the psychic processes as follows:-

We have already mentioned that PU of Jung corresponds with the Freudian Unconscious. The CU which lies deeper is also differentiated into distinct layers. Immediately below the PU is that region of CU termed emotions, the regions of our emotions and affects over which it is not impossible to exercise a rational control. Of particular interest is the layer immediately lower, the accessible part of the Collective Unconscious. The contents from deeper layers break into consciousness taking possession of the individuals, remain incomprehensible and difficult to assimilate as an integral part of the conscious component of the psyche. This layer behaves like an Objective Psyche, wholly autonomous and impersonal. The contents are sediments from all the psyche's animal and human past, and they break into consciousness during dreams, hallucinations visions and so forth. At the lowest lies the unfathomable, the completely inaccessible of which the individuals psyches themselves are said to have differentiated.
"This central force goes through all further differentiations and isolations, lives in them all, cuts through them to the individual psyche, as the only one that goes absolutely unchanged and undivided through all layers." (Jacobi page 32)
Following Freud, Jung also attaches special significance to dreams. A psyche gains access to the contents of the unconscious during dreams and such similar states. The dream contents are outside causal organization, outside also spatio-temporal co-ordination. Their language is also different; it is archaic symbolic, pre-logical. Special methods of interpretation are required to understand their significance.

So much for the bare essentials of the Jungian system. We shall now turn our attention to Saiva Siddhanta or Agamic Psychology and the manner in which it is similar of different.

The Siddhantic System
Right at the outset it must be mentioned that Saiva Siddhanta constitutes only one of the attempts within the tantric/agamic tradition that is coeval with the beginnings of civilization in India. This tradition includes Jainism, Buddhism, Vaisnavism, Saktism and Saivism and their numerous variants. Each tradition represents a significant attempt of man to understand himself, the origins of his psychological miseries, traumas, distresses and thereby, devise a technology to obliviate them. The term in Tamil that comes closest to the meaning of religion is 'camayam' which really means an organized way of life or a system of precepts and practices for the perfection of man. In this long and ancient tradition that has given its character and bent to the Indian culture and which is probably linked to the Pre-Vedic Dravidian cultures in the Indus, Elam, Sumeria and so forth, Saiva Siddhanta constitutes a significant departure in the rigour it introduced in the enterprise. It separated from the other Agamic traditions by taking the concrete experiences of real individuals who were isolated as phenomenologically significant from the point of religious experience. The nayanmars are not saints in the ordinary sense of the word; they are not all exemplars of ideal religious life. For among them are some who are violent, aggressive and perhaps positively cruel. But they are accorded the status of nayanmar for they too, like the others, people taken possession by God. Their behavioral peculiarities are as much facts of religious life as those of the others. Uyyavantha Devar, the initiator of this tradition used the agamic precepts in order to gain an understanding of both the violent, aggressive and benevolent and noble. Meykandar is of course the most brilliant in this tradition because he enunciated the basic principles of Hermeneutic Science as that form of science most suited to the investigation of the human mind and his accomplishments constitutes a milestone in the intellectual history of the world. A persistent neglect of the contributions of Meykandar to our understanding of man, will constitute a great loss to psychology. The intellectual history of Dravidian India was not the same since the advent of Meykandar and the tradition survives till today constituting the hard core of precepts around which the Dravidian culture revolves. The importance of Meykandar will emerge as we seriously attempt to compare and contrast his views with those of Jung, certainly one of the greatest modern psychologists. We shall see presently that such Jungian categories as psyche , personal unconscious, collective unconscious, archetypes and so forth have important parallels. There are also important differences of great significance to psychology.

(a) The psyche
The notion of pasu or anma, as an irreducible category of objects that has to be accepted as real for explaining the complexities of human behaviour closely parallels the Jungian notion of psyche. Meykandar adduces a number of powerful arguments to repudiate the various views current at that time in India to do away with the psyche as a distinct category of objects. We can list them as follows:-
A person negates any positive identification of himself with any other object. A person perceives himself as distinct from the body and sees the body as one of his objects. While the five distinct senses provide sensory perceptions that are distinct, the person integrates them all and sees the object as a complete entity, as a Gestalt.
A person is also conscious of the contents of dreams and such other subliminal states where the active functioning of the sense organs cease.
A person can regress into deeper states of consciousness where even feelings whatsoever are not experienced. Even though they are dreamless states without any feelings arousing psychic content, a person can recall such an experiences and feel that he was in such a state.

The most important however is his observation that the psyche as distinct from other entities distinguishes itself as that which aspires for Mukti, a state of Being-in the-World in which there is Absolute Understanding (called Sivajnanam) characterized by an absence of any Time Consciousness. (For more particulars, see my Metaphysica Universalis of Meykandar) The above arguments are merely a summary of what Meykandar gives in the third sutra of Sivajnabodam. Each thesis is supported by a number of demonstrations and are designed to refute the various views held in India at that time against the postulate of an independent, autonomous psyche in the human (and animal) body to account for distinct features of the behaviour of living creatures. It will not be necessary to enter into the details here for Jung too, as we have seen, begins with similar assumptions. We have to consider an independent, autonomous psyche as the activator of the body, the agent of the mental processes and the experience of the various subliminal states of consciousness. The mind is not simply an epiphenomenon of material processes; neither is it simply an aggregate of internal cognitive processes. It is an independent reality having its own dynamics; in short, it is that which gives the 'living' character to living things. The psyche is the uyir, the life force of the living creatures.

So much for the similarity. There is also an important difference. While in the Jungian system the psyche is seen as something that has split off, separated or differentiated from the unfathomable and deepest CU, in Saiva Siddhanta it is taken to have no origination. The psyches are innumerable, and are anati- beginningless or unoriginated eternal entities. Their history is not one of creation, transformation and annihilation but rather only of transformation and change. A Psyche's evolutionary history is a history of constitutional changes and the history ceases not with the annihilation or re-absorption of the entity itself but rather with annihilation for the need for constitutional changes. However, it should be mentioned that there were other Saivites who held views very similar to Jung in this respect. The seventeenth century Sivaprakasar, one of most prolific and creative philosophers of his time and who initiated a variant of Vira Saiva system in the Tamil country, expresses a view very similar to Jung in his Siddhanta Vikasam. He takes the psyches to have originated from the primary source just like rays of light from the sun. Such a view will not be acceptable to Saiva Siddhanta for it goes against a basic axiom of the school viz. Satkarya Vada : What is, must have been; What is not, could not become. The unreal, non-existent could not become real on whatever account. This principle is clearly a variant of the principle of conservation and any attempt to attribute origination or creation for an entity will violate this principle. If the psyche differentiated itself from the deepest Collective Unconscious, then it must have been part of it in some form or other, caused to differentiate itself and assume separate existence by itself or the CU for some reason or other. What we have is a new state of affairs and not new kinds of entities. Change is a transformation and not the creation of new kinds of entities that never existed before. In Saiva Siddhanta there is no place for such creative acts. There is no creator God in this sense.

The Psychic Functions
Having pointed out this difference, another difference, not unimportant for psychology, should also be pointed out. While Jung considers the essence of a psyche in terms of the four basic psychological functions, Meykandar views the matter rather differently: man is 'icca-jnanang-kriya corupi' i.e. the essence of a psyche is to be an agent of actions, effecting actions to satisfy some need or other guided by some form of consciousness or understanding. This is the natural disposition, the intrinsic nature of all psyches. If a psyche has a complex constituent structure, and it is taken to be so, then it must be accounted for in terms of psyche's natural disposition to be an actor, the agent of the variety of actions. Such psychological functions as those enumerated by Jung are not repudiated but are not taken as primary. These and similar psychic processes are taken to be subordinate to the essential characteristic of a psyche to be an actor or the doer of things and in the course of which reduction in ignorance is effected. This reduction of ignorance which is identified with gaining in consciousness or understanding is what is defined as learning in Saiva Siddhanta.

ACTION ® DESIRE ® CONSCIOUSNESS ® ® ACTION

In the evolution of the psyche, desiring something and doing something to achieve on the basis of some consciousness or other remain the process invariants . These are processes that have brought about the complex structure the psyche's have and which are related to the amount of ignorance destroyed.. The evolution of the psyche is a cyclic process that spirals up with each loop having the same process invariants and differing from each other only in complexity. We can represent it diagramatically as follows:
The perceptual and cognitive processes are subordinate to this -the sense of direction for them, the course of growth they have taken are conditioned by the actions that were in fact effected. This, it must be pointed out, is not inconsistent with what Jung himself has said about the origins of knowledge and human consciousness. The difference seems to be merely a difference in focus. The account of psychological functions given by Meykandar and his followers is not materially different from Jung though it seems to be much more refined. The four distinct kinds of perceptual processes recognized are -sensory perception(vayir katchi), mental perception (manatakaci), self perception (tan vetanai-katci) and yogic perception (yoka-katci). Arulnandi, the most brilliant student of Meykandar, defines them as follows:
Sense perception is the gaining of consciousness of the bare existents of phenomenal reality in itself, without any conceptual understanding that allows verbalization.
Mental perception is the cognition of the bare particulars revealed through the senses in terms of adequate and appropriate conceptual categories so that object identities are known and the object becomes, because of this, namable as such-and -such.
The self-perception is the gaining on consciousness about the psyche's own emotional reactions, feelings that are aroused within by the various cognitions and so forth.
The yogic perception is the gaining of a larger consciousness, deeper and more pervasive, beyond the spatio-temporal categories through such processes as meditation, breath control, recitation of mantras and so forth. We have called this the capacity for Transductive Perception, viz. the perceptual processes in dreaming and such depth psychological experiences.
In addition to perception, Thinking in the broadest sense, Disclosure as embodied in the sacred literature (agamas) are also taken as valid sources or avenues to knowledge, the gaining of additional consciousness. By Thinking is meant not only the logical, the rational psychological processes that result in efficient knowledge but also the interpretive hermeneutic processes that are called utties, a notion that was articulated first in Tolkappiyam and in the context of Literary Hermeneutics . This is another dimension in which while Meykandar is quite clear Jung does not appear to be. What we do not find in Saiva Siddhanta, however , is anything equivalent to Jung's theory of psychological types based on the idea of dominant psychic functions. But it has it's own and quite a complex one at that in which the personality type is related not to the psychic functions but rather the Existential Worlds i.e. the AthAra Cakras.

The acceptance of Spontaneous Disclosures, called Arulal, a process that destroys Throbava, the concealment as an independent source of knowledge in Saiva Siddhanta, distinguished quite clearly from gaining access to the deeper recesses of the human psyche through yogic practices, and its neglect in the Jungian system rests however, upon an important difference in the concept of Collective Unconscious in the two systems as we shall see shortly.

Before we pass over this comparison of the analysis of psychological functions in the two systems, another important distinction in the significance attached to these 'means' of knowledge should also be noted. In Siddhanta, Thinking and Perception as such provide knowledge of the phenomenal reality and they are not free of evaluations of some kind or other and in particular moralistic categorization. The direction for sensory perception, the conceptual categories evolved for acquiring a descriptively adequate and efficient knowledge of the phenomenal reality, feelings they arouse and so forth are coordinated to psyche's endeavour to effect various kinds of actions for the satiation of some lack in itself which emerges as a need, conscious or unconscious. Since all actions have either directly or indirectly some moral overtones, ethical implications, the above types of knowledge are not devoid of moral evaluations. Each content is either punniyam or pavam, morally right or wrong. In view of this, such knowledge is also said to be binding, they increase the bondage of the psyche to the phenomenal existence, the samsara . They contribute towards increasing the karma - the hidden psychic contents - and thereby making the psyche more complex. A opposed to these are knowledge gained through yogic practices and by the study of revealed sacred literature. Such knowledge is liberating- it frees the psyches from the clutches of the Unconscious and also from being one who would increase the contents of the karmic deposits through the effectuation of such actions.

The psyches whose endeavours are in this direction tend towards Nirvana as opposed to Samsara - being bound to phenomenal and suffer the endless cycle of births and deaths. The releasement producing actions are the truly religious, the truly absolving, purifying. It is here that Saiva Siddhanta ceases to be purely a philosophical or a psychological system but also a religion. But this religion, it should be noted, is a NATURAL one, not something that refers to an authority of some kind or other.

This categorization of psychic processes and its impact on the direction of development of the psyches contains the nucleus of a new theory of psychological types, elements of which have already been developed in Saiva Siddhanta.

This analysis and categorization of the basic psychic processes raises a number of fundamental issues. Subsequent to Meykandar several schools of thought have arisen competing among themselves to provide appropriate answers to these challenges.

One of the basic issues is with respect to the essential constitution of the psyches themselves. If the tendencies to Samsara and Nirvana are co-present in every psyche, how are they opposed to each other? Why do not all the psyches do only those which contribute towards the attainment of Nirvana and avoid acts that bind them, weigh them down to an unending cycle of phenomenal existence?

The issues stated thus, ultimately comes down to seeking an account, a theory of the moralistic functioning of the psyches. The account Meykandar gives, enthroned as the central insight of Saiva Siddhanta school of thought, should be considered one of the most unique and profound in the intellectual history of man, raising the stature of Meykandar well beyond many internationally acknowledged leaders of thought. The most far reaching differences between Jung and Meykandar also emerge here.

Meykandar's theory is very cogently presented in the second chapter of his Sivajnabodam viz., illakkanaviyal. Clearly he builds upon the earlier idea of three padarthas-three irreducible category of objects the pasu, pathi and pasam. However, to these he adds a significant contribution of his own viz., the concept of psyche as a sat -asat a notion that was first articulated by Thirumular himself way back in the 7th cent AD itself but appropriately within his hermeneutical and Temporal Analytics of Existence. We shall attend to these matters now.

We have already seen that in Siddhanta, the psyches are innumerable and uncreated eternal entities. This does not mean that constitutionally there is no difference in the initial, intermediate and terminal states. All psyches are said to be initially completely dominated by an obstruent, an active blocking mechanism called anu or anavam. The psychic development, the evolutionary history of the psyche is seen essentially as a history of its endevour to liberate itself a from the hold of anu on its psychological functions, and the constitutional changes, the direction of development such endeavours have taken the psyche to. The psycho-physical differences of the creatures, human and animal alike, are taken as symptoms or markers of the different courses of growth to psyches endeavours to rid themselves of the magical hold of anu, whose essential functional characteristic is to enslave the psyches to Darkness, to keep them always in the SHADOW and keep them continuously in finititude. Anu is a real stuff, distinct from the psyche, uncreated and indestructible just as Pathi and the Pasues. It differentiates itself infinitely while remaining one and opposes every move of the psyche to liberate itself from its hold. The psyches or any other agent, cannot annihilate them, destroy them so that they or it becomes a pure nothing, a non-entity. What the psyches can do is to escape its dominance in their psychological functioning, wean itself from its clutches . If that is so, it may be asked, where do the psyches get the Power or dynamics to liberate themselves and attain complete freedom from the hold of this Anavam ,the finitising agent supreme?

The Transcendental Collective Unconscious: Siva or BEING
Certainly the dynamics could not be derived from the Anu- it will be contradictory to its essential mode of functioning. Neither could it be some internal constituent themselves for initially at least, they lack any interiority. Being dominated completely by Anu it will be impossible to generate within any dynamics in the opposite direction. For these and reasons similar to these, Meykandar postulates another independent reality, distinct from the psyches and Anu but in an intimate relationship with the psyche. This entity, the third of the three ultimate categories of objects, is Pathi or BEING which resembles the unfathomable, the deepest core of the Collective Unconscious from which the psyches themselves are said to have differentiated in the Jungian system. We shall hence forth isolate this entity and call it the BEING, the original meaning of SIVAM and term it also Transcendental Collective Unconscious (TCU) as it will assume a special significance in this comparative study. 'si' in Tamil means 'being' and SIVAM as such is the primordial ground of everything that's there in the world as a being, that which throws the entities into clearness form violating the hold of the darkness breeding Anavam.

A point of great coincidence between these systems is in the delineation of the functional characteristics of TCU though they differ in an important way in their conceptualization or understanding of the essential characteristics of TCU. The TCU in Siddhanta in the source of the liberating dynamics, the source of what is termed the Arul Sakti. The Arul Sakti floods the psyches (sakti- nipa-tam) transforming the psychodynamics so that it is on the whole in the direction of nirvana, Mukti. The functioning of this Arul is explained in terms of fundamental NADIES or psychotropisms as we have called it. This it does through revealing a graduated series of archetypes that seize hold of the psyches or which the psyches themselves take possession of and formulate what they want to be, an image for themselves to become. These then in this possessed way of being in the mind of psyches channel the psychical processes in a particular direction - normally in the direction where by the actions of the psyches are punniyam- morally right. Various technical terms are used to describe the archetypes - murti, peruru, parvativu, aru-uru and so forth but all taken as different configurations of mantra-syllables, an important notion that is still unavailable in the Jungian psychology. The FORM of an archetype is described as murttam or simply aru-vativu. The coincidence in conception, despite the differences,. is indeed striking. However the important differences should also be noted carefully.

. First of all the TCU is the only source of archetypes. All archetypes are configurations TCU and the dialectical form of which has led to the understanding of TCU itself as THE DANCER, Siva Nadarajah. They do not originate elsewhere though once originated they could be in some other layers of the psychic structure. The obstruent Anu or the psyches themselves do not originate or give birth to archetypes, the are not mental creations of the human beings as it is taken in Vedanta and other idealistic systems. All archetypes, whether leading to benevolent activities or destructive behaviours are equally divine in origin and function. All of them serve in some capacity to channel the psychic processes towards to attainment of Nirvana or MUKTI. This carries the implication that the TCU is structure-less, it does not have a special region for the benevolent archetype and another for the malevolent or destructive. As a distinct entity, the TCU is devoid of structures or inner divisions. It is an integrated wholeness without any distinguishable parts. The TCU remains indivisible, without varying, without undergoing transformations and so forth. Tattuvaprakasar, one of the brilliant followers of Meykandar, states this categorically and illustrates it with two revealing analogies. The cows are different but the milk deep in them is one; the flame is one but its forms are many. (Tattvaprakasam, sutra. 24).

The observation that the archetypes emanating from TCU are conditioned disclosures of divine forms that take possession of the psyches determining their course of behaviour which eventually is for their own benefit carries the implication that TCU is intelligent and conscious of the requirements of each psyche. It is clearly stated in many texts of Siddhanta that while TCU is unconscious from the point of view of the psyches, in itself it is not unconscious of itself or anything outside itself. There is nothing that it is not conscious, there is nothing with which it is not. The TCU is sarvagjnan- the all knowing entity. As Meykandar has explained the matter, TCU is a civasat- an entity that is absolutely transcendent and absolutely atemporical and hence not subject to changes in consciousness. Further more it is the only entity with these characteristics. Tracing the origins of both the benevolent and malevolent archetypes to the same entity may seem contradictory. It may be suggested that generalizing from this, the dark as well as the light side of the psychic unconscious are to be located finally at TCU. And hence, TCU is the source of both the good and the evil, the morally right and the morally wrong, a line of thinking that Jung seems to have favoured.

The resolution of this dilemma in Saiva Siddhanta is unique and distinguishes it not only from the Jungian system but also from all other systems in India as well as outside.

4 The Moral and the Non-Moral.
In Saiva Siddhanta , the malevolent or destructive aspect of behaviour is distinguished sharply from the evil, the immoral i.e pavam. As Uyyavanta Tevar states it, whether it is melvinai i.e. kindly actions expressive of benevolence of valvinai i.e. destructive actions, both are equally divine in themselves- both are consistent with sivadharma. (Tirukalirruppatiyar, verses 16,17,18,19 and 20). Ciruttonta nayanar killed his own son and cooked curry for a Saiva ascetic, Tanticar chopped off the legs of his Brahmin father for defiling the offerings set aside for Siva, Arivattanayanar cut his own throat and offered his own self for Siva. Periapuranam records many such instances of malevolent acts- acts performed worshipping Siva as Bairava- the Terrible. Such acts, though gruesome, are taken as factual records of genuine religious experiences and are accorded the same importance as the numerous acts of benevolence of the other Saiva nayanmars. Saiva and Bairava, Siva and Rudra are two distinct forms of one and the same TCU. The acts of violence on themselves and others in such instances as these do not constitute evil acts for as a result of such acts, the above nayanmars managed to gain a vision of Siva himself i.e. TCU burst into their consciousness as an Integrated Wholeness in all its splendour, in some archetypal form. The evil acts are not purely the destructive such as the above but are those that do not contribute towards the destruction of ignorance or cause a FALL by taking the psyches away from the course towards the attainment of liberation, nirvana, Mukti. They contribute towards the increased dominance of ANAVAM and hence, encourages regression into earlier stages of psychic development. The immoral acts make a man less of a man, and more of a beast; if already a beast then a lower kind of beast. The evil acts prevent what elsewhere has been called transcendence- the transformation of a psyche into a higher species.(K.Loganathan Muttarayan,1982) The Anu, the ultimate cause of the moral struggle of the psyche, should not be considered, on this account as a spirit- the Satan, the Devil and so forth. For Anu is not a spirit at all -it is inert (cetam), non-intelligent (acetanam) and indestructible though infinitely differentiable into innumerable kinds. Its natural tendency is to engulf the psyches and throw them into the SHADOW or Darkness. But this tendency too is a material tendency very much like gravitation. On that account, it is completely impersonal.

If neither the anu nor the TCU is the source of the moral sense, where are we to locate it? An obvious answer, in view of the characteristics of Anu and TCU delineated above, is that the moral sense originates in the psyches themselves. This may appear rather puzzling in view of the postulated ignorance of psyches with regard to what is right and wrong. We should note carefully that what the Siddhanta psychologist say is not that the psyches know what is good and evil but only that moral evaluations originate within the psyches. More specifically they emerge in the psychic center called Buddhi-the center where feelings and evaluations are located. Clearly judgments imply a normative criteria-a value or values against which judgments are made. Clearly also it is the acts whether bodily, linguistic or mental that are moral or immoral. Now such normative criteria cannot originate in Anu- an inert non-intelligent stuff. The psyches themselves could not generate them for if they do then they ought to know what is right and wrong. We are left then with TCU as the source of normative principles, the criteria or values that form the basis for the emergence of ethical feelings within the psyches. By providing the normative principles through appropriate archetypal images, the TCU causes the emergence of moral feelings within the psyches. These feelings are intuited- become objects of mental perceptions and communicated as discoveries of a sort. They acquire an imperative force by virtue of the extra-psychic origins of such knowledge and the felt importance of it towards the progress of the psyches in the direction of liberation.

The line of arguments that led Meykandar and his students to such a profound and deeply significant analysis of the origins of moral sense is described in greater detail elsewhere, (K.Loganathan Mutharayan, 1996) suffice here to say it differs fundamentally from the Jungian analysis of the Christian theologians whom he criticized. The Siddhantic analysis introduces a directionality in the psychic functioning of immense significance- whatever a psyche does, it is either liberation promoting or not, conducive towards the attainment of nirvana or not. Those that are good bring the psyches more into the sphere of influence of TCU; those that are not, lead the psyches away from TCU but bring closer towards the dominance of Anu. There is an inherent bipolarity in the psychological processes of psyches that remains with them during their entire course of phenomenal existence. This bipolarity, a combat-like struggle between opposite pulls , this divisive moral sense, conditions the sediments that accrue in the psychic constitution and settle eventually in the hidden layers of the unconscious. this bipolarity in the psychological functioning of all psyches.

The Ideal Self
While Jung recognizes the connections between the dark and light sides, the benevolent and terrible, the benign and gruesome, it is not sufficiently differentiated from the morally good and evil, the right and wrong. This results in a number of contradictions in the concept of archetypal Self- the Self that is the center of subjectivity of all the archetypes, the complete wholeness that is simultaneously Christ and Anti Christ. To the extent they are taken as archetypal characterization of TCU, then it is just another one among the many possibilities such as Siva-Rudra, Uma-Durga, and so forth. Within this conceptual framework it is also consistent to ascribe to it an infinite capacity for regulating the cosmic processes. If this is so, then the Anti Christ, Bairava, Rudra, Durga, Kali and so forth are not causes of immorality or the morally reprehensible side of man. The creatures are not morally evil when such archetypes as above take hold of their psychic functions and determine their actions and endeavour. They are just as divine as the benevolent, the beautiful, the kind and the noble. From this it also follows that the Christ-Anti Christ complex when equated with Siva-Rudra and so forth could not be the image in which man is made. If we take it to be then man must be considered wholly divine though capable of both benevolence and destruction (out of Grace). It will not account for moralistic polarity in man's psychic functions. The capacity for the morally evil actions will remain unexplained.

The Christian theologians seem to have recognized the inconsistency in deriving the bipolar moral sense from Christ, the divine. The divine, they correctly recognized cannot be the source of evil. However, they too appeared not to have differentiated sharply the morally evil from the gruesome, destructive, and the terrible. They banished Yahweh from Christ by establishing an antithesis instead of an inseparable complementarity, a result due to lack of sufficient discrimination between the terrible and the morally evil. It has led them to such views as 'God can only be good' that evil is 'the privation of good' and so forth. (cw: vol. 9 II, page 46). The notion of dimunition of good as evil, denying the reality evil that characterises the Christian theologians is wholly inconsistent with the stand taken in Saiva Siddhanta. The evil is real; that man and all creatures do actions that are pavam (evil) and punniyam (good) is undeniable; it is a universal feature of behaviour. Man does evil and there lies his human character. The source of his evil actions is however, not the Christ-Anti Christ, Siva-Rudra and so forth but rather man himself- his going deeper under the spell of Anu, regressing into lower forms of being because of the FALL unto the PULL of Anu, the finitising agent supreme.

Man's need to be, to exist as a phenomenal reality, being chained to samsara is ultimately derived by the Saivites from the need for all psyches to liberate themselves completely from the dominance of the ever depressing Anu in their psychic functioning. The TCU initiates this struggle by providing to the psyches an initial consciousness of their bound nature and continuously guides and regulates their progress through archetypal interventions of both benign and fierce types. In the terrible war that has to be waged with demonic forces of Anavam, TCU provides the psyches the terrible forms as well to do the battle valiantly. The TCU is seen as the source and strength of the psyche's ceaseless struggle for liberation sometimes love-dominated and sometimes anger-dominated.

Now in this struggle TCU has to be both Destructive and Generative, the Terrible and Benevolent, otherwise it would lack the capacity to regulate and guide the upward progress of the psyches towards Mukti. God has to be both Benign and Angry for otherwise He could not function as the Supreme Power. The Christ-Anti Christ is not an image of self, the form in which the creatures are made but only a form, an important aspect of TCU- the ultimate source of Consciousness and Power.

Meykandar has argued powerfully for the need for TCU to be both Destructive and Generative. The mutal is cankarakaranan- the Supreme Power is the Supreme Agent of destruction. The Supreme Power has to be one that has the destructive and generative powers within itself in an active complementary relationship. They have to be manifested together for the regulation of the cosmic processes including the psychical that lead the psyches towards ultimate liberation, releasement from imprisonment with the phenomenal.

The demand for active complementary relationship between the destructive and generative aspects distinguishes Saiva Siddhanta from the Visistaadvaita of Nammalvar-Ramanuja. Nammavar explains TCU as 'uyarvara uyar nalam utayavan ' a being outside whom there is nothing, a sarvesvaran'. In such an understanding Destruction and Generation will remain as elements among elements, aspects among aspects without any intimate complementary relationship. If that were so, as it has been pointed out repeatedly by a host of Siddhanties , TCU will lack the capacity to regulate the cosmic processes effectively- it could not be a Cosmic Power. Appaya Dikshita (16th century) in his 'pirammataruk-kastalam' has explored a vast range of mystic figures in Indian puranas and itihasas and shown the presence of the destructive and benefactive in complementary relationship in the archetypal forms of all great Gods.

Man is destructive-generative because of the presence of TCU within and it is the PULL provided by TCU from within perhaps unknown to himself that enables him to be moralistic. The moral feelings emerge in the context of the psyche's expression of the destructive-generative capacities against the dominance of Anu in his psychic functions. It is this characteristic of man that constitutes his humanness, the creature nature of the creatures. The creatures derive their very important destructive-generative power ultimately from TCU- the creatures' power is an expression of the Supreme Power of TCU. For this reason TCU becomes the Pasu-pati, the Lord of the creatures and in a way the ground, the basis of the moral sense in man.

This divergence in conception of the essential nature of the psyches between Meykandar and Jung also leads to differences in the conception of the ideal man. As we have already seen, Jung limits himself to saying that such a man is a rounded man, complete man who is capable of all the four basic psychological functions. He is the most differentiated man, who is able to react psychologically in the manner most suited to the problem situation or dilemma. Such a man will be psychologically healthy - he will be incapable of neuroses, psychoses and so forth.

Meykandar, however sees the ideal psyche differently. Since he sees psyches essentially as struggling against the regressive Anu, the ideal psyche will be one who has won the battle completely. His psychic functions will not be influenced by Anu to any degree at all, it will be completely under the dominance of the divine TCU. This also means that such a psyche will not be moralistic at all -it would have transcended completely that divisive state of functioning. As such, it will be very much like TCU without loosing however its identity. The ideal psyche's psychological functions will be unidirectional and tend only in the directions of TCU; it would have lost its orientation towards Anu. We can represent this state of affairs in the diagram (V).

It will remain, metaphorically speaking, at the feet of Siva with no other thoughts or inclinations in a state of complete self-surrender. This certainly does not mean complete stillness or passivity. It is being, existing, acting without however any moral divisiveness. It is doing what is consistent with unflinching self-surrender to TCU. (This is not a complete description; a very extensive description is given in my Azivil Unmai, still unpublished)

A number of new questions arise within the framework of this analysis. The most important will be questions with regard to the technology or utties that would bring about the realization of such an ideal state.

This question has been handled in very great detail and the bulk of agamas and Siddhanta literature is in fact about the psycho-transformational technology that would facilitate such a development. The importance of these technologies for psychotherapy and education over and above religious existence as such should not be underestimated. Since it is being proposed to deal with it separately in another paper; we shall postpone detailed discussions of it to a later stage. Sufficient to note the notion of religious practices as specifies of utties makes religious existence itself PEDAGOGICAL in nature hence religious life itself a life on continuos learning. Of crucial importance for the present stHE ANALYTICAL PSYCHOLOGY OF JUNG AND THE AGAMIC PSYCHOLOGY OF The basic Saiva Siddhanta texts examined do not include the asuras, the devils, witches and such other archetypes that are evil in what they term as murtis, uru and so forth. Tattuvaprakasar, who deals very extensively with archetypes and argues very strongly to establish not only their reality but also their necessity for psychic growth, does not include the asuras or demons in his list or archetypes. (Tattuvaprakasam, verses 20,21, 23, 24, 26 and 216). Revana Sittar defines the archetypes as 'primordial images with a great capacity for facilitating growth (peruku tirannilai maruvam uru-Sivajnana Tipam, verse 26) and compares those who do not see the different archetypes as expressions of the same underlying reality to the blind men who insist on the accuracy of their own picture of an elephant derived by beholding only part of it (verse 33). In his enumeration of the archetypes though the terrible forms are included but not the evil ones. Sivajnana Sitti, an extensive and basic text that deals with practically all the major issues also do not mention any such archetypes. Cattainnata Vallal, in his deep study of the significance of a single but basic archetype 'Cathasivam' defines 'satakkiyama' as the emergence of archetypes during meditations and such other excursions into the Depths, differentiated into many as a result of differentiation of the inherent power in TCU (sutra 5). His enumeration of archetypes in terms of the differentiated power inherent in them does include the devilish kind and his explanation in terms of gunas is not in line with the basic tenets of Saiva Siddhanta. Tiru Kalirruppatiyar, as we have already seen, mentions such terrible and gruesome archetypes as Bairava but not interestingly enough, any that are evil or foreboding.

We should conclude then that despite considerable overlap in the concept of murti and archetype, there is a difference as well. The murtis are divine archetypes and they emanate from TCU. The non-divine archetypes are not murtis and are not analysed to any extend in the basic texts examined. This raises an important question: How can the devilish evil archetypes be accommodated within the conceptual framework of Saiva Siddhanta?

(f) The Evil Archetypes and Karma
An attempt will be made now to provide an explanation that is adequate and supremely illuminating within the framework of the Fundamental Ontology that Meykandar has established to his eternal credit.. An examination of the most important or at least the basic texts that were available for examination, reveal that this aspect of the problem is one of the least developed in the system. Discussions remain fairly at a general level- one fails to find any detailed discussions of the origins of psychoses, neuroses and other psychic ailments comparable to that available in Jungian system or even in Freud, though the important contributions of the Siddhas who dealt with such matters remains yet to be studied carefully. Among the Saiva philosophers most of the psychic energy, it would appear, seem to have been spent on understanding TCU, the nature of divine archetypes and the kinds of technologies that would serve to remove the ailments of the psyches and enable them to attain Mukti.

It has already been mentioned that TCU, the psyches and Anu are taken as irreducible categories of object without which no cosmic processes can be explained adequately. Anu is the eternally present obstruent , a non intelligent material stuff whose intrinsic nature is to engulf the psyches and block off consciousness. TCU, through archetypal intervention provides an initial awareness of this condition of the psyches with which begins the samsara, the phenomenality of the psyches. The psyches endeavour unceasingly to liberate themselves from the magical hold of Anu; the moral sense guides them in this struggle till they attain success. The origins of human distresses, miseries, mental ailments and so forth are ultimately traced to this moral struggle of the psyches. The sediments of this moral struggle, or program-like mantra complexes that are continuously acquired, the additions to the psychic constitutions that are due to this long moral war from the beginning of phenomenal existence is termed karma, literally meaning the products of actions. The word 'kar-' is Tamil and is available also in Sumerian which is archaic Tamil. It must be recalled that Jung had the Indian Karma doctrine in mind when he talked about Collective Unconscious though it is not clear which doctrine of Karma he had in mind.

Karma is called an acquired obstruent (akantuka malam) in contrast to Anu that is termed primary or natural obstruent (sahaja malam). In addition to Karma, the psychophysical body that psyches attach themselves to in any life-run is also said to be a by product of this moral struggle of the psyches against the hold of Anu. Such bodies and all the manifestational basis of everything in the universe including the mantras, thought forms and so forth are said to be evolutes of the primeaval Sakti or Energy more commonly as Kundalini. The TCU, the ultimate source and ground of all Forms, including the archetypal is said to co-exist with this Primeaval Energy, the undifferentiated manifestational foundation of everything that has being in the universe. There cannot be any of the cosmic processes without the union of TCU and this undifferentiated Energy. This knowledge is expressed archetypically in the forms of the abstract linga-yoni symbolism, more concretely as the dance of Siva-Sakti, BEING as androgynous a notion also articulated by Jung. The author of Tirukalirrupatiyar describes this same knowledge by characterizing the TCU-Energy pair as the primary Father-Mother of the whole cosmic processes (ammaiappare ulakukku ammaiappar). Ritually this is celebrated in the form of the sacred marriage of Siva to Parvati, a marriage alliance in which however, Parvati remains forever chaste (Kanni). This very important ritual in the Siva temples, interestingly enough has come down from at least the Sumerian times; there are also numerous archeological evidences to suggest that it was prevalent even among the people of Harappa and Mohenjadaro.

The material evolutes, being products of the psyches' struggle against Anu, are also termed as acquired obstruents just like Karma. The differentiate aspects of the psyches- physically as well as psychically, along with their phenomenality are acquired, are products of the actions, endeavours of the psyches to attain liberation. The doctrine of iruvinai- the punniyam-pavam complex, the divisive nature of moral sense, in addition to being used to explain the origins of the psychological ailments, is also utilized to explain the observable differences of the creatures- the individual as well as the species-genus differences of all the living creatures. The essential outline of this theory has been already explained elsewhere (k.Loganathan Muttarayan, 1982). We shall now focus our attention on the psychological ailments and the manner in which the concepts can be expanded to include the devilish archetypal forms.

There are two theories in the body of Saiva Siddhanta texts regarding the origins of the psychological miseries, mental disorders and so forth. The first, available in 'jnanamirtam' seems to be a refinement of the Samkya doctrines. Just as in Samkhya, the miseries are divided into three types- atiyanmikam , atipautikam and atiteyvikam. By atiyanmikam are meant bodily and psychic disorders of the creatures. Including in the list of the bodily ailments are depressions and sadness caused by separations, loss of properties and so forth, diseases caused by evil sprits such as ghosts, devils, demons and so forth, diseases caused by psychological disorders, distresses caused by rogues, enemies, birds, beasts and so forth. Among the mental distresses or ailments are included extreme sadness or depressions, jealousy and avarice, disappointments arising from failing to get what is desired, distresses caused by offenses to dignity and pride, miseries arising from bad temper and so forth.

Under atipautikam are listed distresses caused by the physical forces of nature. Atiteyvikam includes distresses that are due to the inevitable creature processes such as birth, old age, death as well as distresses arising from the state of psyche being ignorant or not being conscious of the contents of the unconscious (anjnanam). Unfortunately this rather important components of the psychological distresses, important from the point of view of modern psychology is not elaborated much further (akaval 26). The origins of these miseries are traced to the acquired karma, hidden in the deep recesses of the psyches and forgotten by them. These are the punniyams and pavams, acquired in the earlier lives, manifesting themselves when the time is appropriate with punniyams causing happiness and pavams causing miseries of the above sort (akaval 25). Ultimately the origins of all miseries, bodily and psychic, are traced to the deposits in the psychic structure that has accumulated as a result of morally evil actions i.e. actions that are regressive in the struggle for liberation. Vagisar, the author of Jnanamirtham, classifies Karma into kayakanmam and Purvakanman. The kayakanman is the sediment accumulated in the submerged component of the psyche as a result of conscious, intentional actions from the time of birth. The purvakanman, on the other hand is the inherited, the ancestral action-outcomes that has come along with the psyches in their long journey of transmigrational existence. Such notions of Vagisar, can be compared with the Personal Unconscious and Collective Unconscious of Jung.

Meykandar, as reported by Arulnandi in his Irupairupatu, seems to have viewed the matter rather differently. The sources of miseries are traced not only to Karma but also to the other malas- anu and maya (the evolutes of Energy, the forms of matter) (Irupa verse 4). Thinking that one is unique (vikarpam), projective thinking (karpam, such as for example that Jung studied under Transference), irritability and angry moods (krotam), sexual and related desires (mokam), murderous inclinations (kolai), proneness to depression (ajnar), pride and egotism (matam), and inclination to ridicule, insult and cause miseries to others (nakai) are traced directly to the functions of the psyche under the dominance of Anu itself. The implication is that, without the strong interference of TCU or when the interference of TCU is weakened for some reasons or other, the psyches will tend to do the above, which are at the same time the paradigmatic cases of what constitutes evil, the morally objectionable. To say that the psyches are dominated by Anu is the same as to say that they are naturally inclined to do the types of things listed above. This list of the instinctual forces that characterizes the psychodynamics of creatures is more inclusive than the Freudian death and sexual instincts or Adlerian power instinct. Meykandar is closer to Jung in this respect. It should also be noted that 'instinctual' in modern psychology corresponds to Meykandar's forces or psychotropisms operative when the psyche is under the dominance of Anu. and TCU and so forth. These basic instincts show their dominance in terms of symptoms (kunam and kuri) and the dominating presence of Anu in the psychological functioning of the psyches is disclosed by the inclinations to do the above kinds of evil actions.

Unconsciousness, (anjnanam), illusions (poy), misunderstanding or erroneous belief (ayarvu), desire or coveteousness (mokam), untruthfulness (paicacuniyam), hatred (marcariyam), misplaced fear (payam) are attributed to maya i.e. excessive attachment to the materialistic manifestations or evolutes of differentiated Primordial Energy.

Lethargy and disinterestedness (iruttal), proneness to diseases (kitattal), moralistic behaving (iruvinai iyarral), insulting others (para nintai), communing with morally lower beings (meval) and so forth are traced to karma.

It is clear that Meykandar traces the origins of the psychological or psychic processes that are not healthy, to immoderate attachment to the evalutes of Maya- the primordial energy. Those listed under karma are undesirable features of behaviour, action. Since both maya and karma are acquired obstruents which is not the case with Anu, it is clear that Meykandar considers the origins of undesirable psychic processes and social behaviours as ultimately traceable to the actions of the psyches done with the dominance of Anu on them i.e. actions in the direction of FALL, actions that take the psyches away from TCU and closer to Anu. (see my article on Tantric Psychology for a more detailed discussion of this issue)

This account of Meykandar constitutes a significant departure from the traditional views then current in India at that time and is one of the most original contributions of Meykandar. It has remained one of the most distinctive features of Saiva Siddhanta and has contributed enormously towards changing the direction of development of the psychotechnologies, as evidenced by birth of Siddha Medical Science and its proliferation in the Tamil country, developments that bring Saiva Siddhanta very close to modern analytic psychology.

We can view the matter as follows. With the archetypal intervention of TCU begins the conscious functioning of the psyches. Along with it also begins the instinctual struggles of various kinds on account of some psychotropisms that come to prevail. These pulls that exist as unconscious for the most part make the psyches effect various kinds of actions. This in turn brings about increments of the psychic contents and transmigratory phenomenal existence as mantra complexes of various kinds are inherited. Such action-outcomes that are added to the contents of psyches and left as residues in the submerged part of the psyche are elements of the unconscious and unknown to the psyches determine the psychophysical characteristics of their phenomenal existence. The contents of these unconscious can be divided into Personal Unconscious (kaya kanmam) and Collective Unconscious (purva kanmam) as Jung has observed. Further subdivisions of these are also possible. Each layer can be sub divided into punniyam and pavam. The punniyam are residues of previous actions that were felt by the psyches as morally good, the right, the divine. The pavam is the opposite-they are residues of the psyches past actions that were felt evil, morally objectionable. The contents can also be divided as maya and karma (a different sense here) where a portion of maya components is the product of actions in the direction of the forces that bind the psyche to the physicalistic world of mayai. A portion of karma component similarly is the residue of similar kinds of actions that results in undesirable behaviours in the present life.

What is common to both theories is that pavam component in the unconscious is the cause of miseries, distresses anti social and undesirable dispositions, traumas, moods and so forth and perhaps we can add, neuroses, psychoses and so forth. When under the stimulus of elements in an experience, unknown to the person, they may emerge from the deeper layers of the psyche into consciousness and seizing his psychic functions, throw him into moods that traumatic. Simultaneously perhaps we have elements from the punniyam component competing for control of the conscious intentional actions of the person. The conflict between the two is manifested as struggles in existence making the person seek the guidance of a Guru or a counselor, a psychiatrist and so forth.

Vagisar

A: Purva kanmam
B: Kaya kanmam
C: Consciousness
The shade part pavam, the unshaded part punniyam
Meykandar-Arulnandi
A: Maya
B: Karma
C: Consciousness
The shaded part responsible for the undesirable psychic and behavioural manifestations. The explanation also provides a framework for explaining the origins of the devilish archetypes. All archetypes, as we have seen, originate in TCU, however as archetypes experienced by the psyches they become deposits in the unconscious components of the psyche. Since every experience of the psyches occur within the morally divisive good-evil dichotomy it is possible that archetypes, as elements of experience are also experienced as morally good or evil. Some archetypal experience of the psyches could have been felt as good in the sense that intuitively they judge them as contributing towards the struggle against the dominance of Anu. Similarly some archetypal experience could have been felt intuitively as evil, as not promoting the struggle for liberation, moving closer to Mukti. The asuras, demons, witches, evil sprits and so forth are then also archetypes that have the same origin as the other archetypes i.e. TCU-energy, the Siva-Sakti complex but coloured by the moral feelings of the psyches that experience them. They are opposed to the devas, gods and goddesses, fairies and nymphs, the 'good' sprits; i.e. archetypes that are experienced as 'good' by the psyches. The bulk of mythologies, the puranas and so forth are stories about the battles between those two kinds of archetypes within the experiences of the psyches with the devas or the good sprits always defeating the asuras or the evil spirits. The puranas then become expressions of the ceaseless struggle of man for liberation, liberation from the regressive enchantment of Anu. They express what is universal not only in man but also in all creatures, the MahaBharatha War that is waged by each individual within his own soul.

This account of archetypes allows us to distinguish three elements in the archetypes: i) The structure or simply the form of the archetypes.
ii) The manifestational basis- the energy differentiated that gives substance to them and make the phenomenal.
iii) The moral feelings or in general the complex of emotions and evaluative judgments of the psyches in whose consciousness the archetypes manifest themselves.
The sources of pure forms is Siva; the source of the manifestation basis is Sakti or Suddha Mayai. The archetypes are then fractions of Siva-Sakti that make the appearance in the consciousness arousing different kinds of feelings and emotions depending upon the context in which they appear. They are experienced as benign, divine, auspicious, sacred on the one hand, devilish, demonic, evil, foreboding and so forth on the other. This feeling tone is peculiarly psychic- the archetypes in themselves do not carry such feelings. It is this feeling aspect that contributes to the differentiation of the archetypes into divine and devilish, the good and the evil and this only because the Anavam is present in deep most psychic interiority of all the psyches.

Jung explained the origins of the archetypes in terms of repeated occurrences of natural events in psychic experiences. This has to be modified somewhat in the light what we have said so far. Psyches act in order to accomplish a need in the light of what ever consciousness or understanding they have. When such acts are repeated over and over again, they become routines, habits the execution of which do not require any more conscious attention. As such they may become elements of the Personal Unconscious. Disasters morally objectionable actions, whether linguistic, mental or physical may be repressed and submerged into the Personal Unconscious which we can identify with one form of Karma viz. Agamiyam

At death the most general aspects of these deposits are probably transferred to a lower layer of the psyches and retained there. At rebirth, these lower contents determine the psycho-physical forms the creatures inherit biologically. In Saiva Siddhanta, as in many other systems in Indian thought , three different types of karma are recognized. The kamiyakarma is the same as the kayakarma mentioned earlier, which is also known as Agamiyam that corresponds reasonably well with PU of Jung. In addition to these Prartha karma and Sanjitha Karma are also recognized.

These two appear to correspond with the Collective Unconscious of Jung. Perhaps we have to subdivide CU into Ancestral Personal Unconscious and Ancestral Collective Unconscious to correspond respectively to the above two karmas. The Ancestral Collective Unconscious is perhaps more specifically the Species General residue of experiences of archetypes. As human beings, all persons share a common past with respect to archetypal experiences the trace of which is left in the psychic structure determining a common biological nature- the species characteristics. The Ancestral Personal Unconscious, however, is that unique component in the individual psyches, derived from the ancestral past that contributes to determining the biologically inherited idiosyncratic features of the individual. All these are however, ultimately derivable from the contents of the Personal Unconscious i.e. products of kamiya karma- intentional and conscious actions of the psyches. All creatures in existence have a biological structure and psychical processes consonant with it that are ultimately products of its own actions in the lives past.

This is the greatest discovery of Dravidian civilization, tantric/agamic culture where the karma doctrine arose. To escape from being chained to transmigratory existence also become the major goal of life; religious life as such was consciously patterned to enable this. The psycho-technologies developed for this purpose has important implications for psychotherapy, a fact that Jung and many others have already noted. Saiva Siddhanta had a lot to offer here but this line of investigation will be taken up separately.

Concluding Remarks
In this brief study only the essentials in Jungian system and Saiva Siddhanta were attended to. The Jungian system is the closest in the West that comes anywhere comparable to the various philosophical/psychological systems the East has formulated and lived by. In this Saiva Siddhanta comes closest to resembling Jungian system in a number of essential features. The concept of psyche and archetype appears to be, in essentials at least, similar in both systems. However, in the theoretical explanation a great divergence is observable. Though Jung tries to extricate himself from the thoughts of the Christian theologians, he still appears to fall short of a complete departure that seems to be required for an objective, scientific explanation. In logical rigour and depth of analysis Meykandar stands well above Jung. This should not be surprising for Meykandar lived and breathed in a tradition that had lived through many varieties of Buddhism, Jainism and Vedanta, all great systems that made significant and profound contributions towards understanding the origins of human miseries. However, there are also aspects of psychology that are better developed in Jungian system than in Saiva Siddhanta. On the whole the two stand in a complementary relationship with each other and a deeper study of both will be mutually beneficial. For Saivites, the importance of Jungian system can be seen as follows.The brilliant start that Meykandar gave, came to a close around the seventeenth century. No texts of major importance has come down to us after this period. The loss of independence to Muslims and European colonial powers might have been the indirect causes of this intellectual degeneratioIn the revival that we are witnessing today, Jungian system provides a theoretical, conceptual framework within which we can relate Saiva Siddhanta to the modern world. We can easily assimilate the advances Jung has made without any basic changes to the profundity that Meykandar has bequeathed to us. Having done this and adapted the system to the modern world, we can pursue making new advances to make the system sufficiently rich and adequate to the demands of the modern world, the modern man, the men and women of this generation. There are many domains of psychology that has been hardly studied within the overall theoretical framework of Saiva Siddhanta. Such areas as educational psychology, psychiatry, industrial psychology and so forth are still about human behaviour, human development . Saiva Siddhanta has a profound analysis of human nature and this knowledge has to be extended to the various domains of human behaviour. Let us consider these as the most important tasks of the present generation of Saivites. Let us Westernize ourselves in this direction so that we can contribute the central insights of Saiva Siddhanta in a form more acceptable to the modern world. We must recognize that only in Saiva Siddhanta there is no conflict between religion and reason for it demands no authority, submission to dogmas, historical revelations, unquestioning Faith and so forth. It is the only system that understands the religious dimensions of human behaviour within the framework of General Pedagogy.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.Appaya Dikshitar Pirama tarukkas tala Tamil trans. By A.Ambalavana Navalar, 1985

2 Arulnandi Civacariar a) Civajnana Cittiya Com. Civajnana Yogikal Kazhaka Pub. 1969.

b) Irupairupatu Com.Tattuvanatar, Tiruvavaduturai atinam, 1969

3. Cikazhi Cattainata Vallal Catacivarupam Tiruvavaduturai atinam, 1954.

4. Cirrampala Natikal Tukalaru potam, (Ed) Ta-ca-Minatchi Sundram Pillai Tiruvavaduturai atinam, 1952,

5. Civapprakasar Civapprakasa Vikasam Date and publisher unknown.

6. Edinger, Edward F Ego and Archetype, Penguin Books, 1972.

7. Fordham, Freud Introduction to Jung's Psychology, Penguin Book, 1953.

8. Jacobi, Jolan The Psychology of C.G. Jung Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubnet & Co., London, 1942.

9.Jung C.G. a) Two Essays on Analytical Psychology, C.W. Vol. 7, English Translation, R.F.C. Hull

b) Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the self C.W. Vol. 9, part II, English Translation R.F.C. Hull Routledge and Kegam Paul, 1968.

10.Loganathan Mutharayan, K. a) Arunandi's Theory of Moral Behaviour, Saiva Siddhanta, Vol xvi, 1981. & 6., 1982.

b)Tantric Theory of Learning, Saiva Siddhanta, Vol. Xvi no. 5 & 6, 1982.

c) Metaphysica Universalis of Meykandar, World Saiva Counsil, 1996 11. Meykandar Civajnana Botam With cirurai by Civajnana Yogikal Annamalai University Pub. 1968.

12. Revana Cittar Civajnanatipam Madras Govt. Oriental Series No VII

13. Tattuvaprakasar TattuvapPirakasam (Ed) M. Arunasalam, 1965.

14. Umapathi Civacariar Civapparakasam, Kazhaka Pub. 1969

15.Uyyavanta Tevar II, Tirukkalirrupatiyar anuputiurai,(Ed) M. Arunasalam, 1962.

16.Vagisar Jnanamirtam, (Ed) Avvai S. Duraisamy Pillai Annamalai University Pub. 1954.

Back To Main Page