Ashram Economics

ashram2002By Nitaisundara dasa

Recently the New York Times published an article titled “Hard Times Are Jamming  the Ashrams,” explaining how the current state of the economy and job market is causing a rise in ashram popularity. The article starts with a glimpse into the life of one such person who has taken to ashram life in the wake of the economic crisis:

Shortly after Steven Odnoha lost his job at Intel, he drove three days from Rio Rancho, N.M., to the Himalayan Institute in Honesdale, Pa. For months, Mr. Odnoha had been wondering how he could get the time off to join a yearlong meditation program at the nonprofit yoga retreat. His pink slip, in September 2007, provided the answer.

The article then goes on to explain that Odnoha’s hopes to reenter the work force were met with defeat and subsequently his “yearlong program” continues—going on 22 months now. It is interesting to read of western professionals abandoning their lifestyle and ‘heading for the hills’, but as the title of the article suggests, this is more about people whose lifestyles have abandoned them, and thus they turn to a spiritual (and cheap) alternative. Initially what comes to my mind is that spiritual life should not be embraced merely because one’s facility for material enjoyment and sustenance have been unwillingly removed by the march of time or the hand of circumstance. But then again, few among us can honestly deny owing a debt to negative impetus, for it so often speaks louder than positive experiences. Psychologists have demonstrated, for example, that in a relationship it takes about five positive interactions to counterbalance one negative one. So I suppose negative impetus deserves some respect. Doors close only for others to open.

Those ashrams that open their doors to those driven more by the loss of a paycheck than interest in monastic life do arguably risk compromising their monastic environment. Monasticism is after all a lifestyle that is neither for the rich and famous nor for those that want to be. We may lose our paycheck but the desires that fueled our employment don’t disappear as easily as one’s boss can lay one off. “If you’re applying because you can’t deal with life, that’s not a good motivation,” says the coordinator of one of the ashrams covered in the piece. Monastics keep close company with one another because they derive strength from those of similar resolve to walk a road less traveled, and one could also argue well that they need to once and for all shake off the lingering reputation born centuries past of being a place for those who could not make it in the world.

That said, considerable negative impetus can be the final drop that breaks the dam and takes one out of the stream of worldliness and into the oceanic depths of inner spiritual experience. The poetry of the Bhagavata comes to mind, and the life of a great saint as well. A.C Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada was fond of citing this verse spoken by Sri Krishna in relation to his own life:

I gradually take the wealth of those whom I favor. (SB 10.88.8)

Thus one never knows who may walk through an open ashram door. Monastics should be compassionate, and they themselves know well the truth of the age old adage “nothing risked nothing gained.” They are also for the most part a work in progress themselves. I am not suggesting a wide open door policy that gave ashrams of the sixties a bad name, but if someone knocks, answer the door. And apparently more are knocking these days. Furthermore, although ashrams are ideally thought of as a place that once entering one never leaves, the truth is another thing. Few come and many go, but hopefully they all go away a little wealthier.

About the Author

27 Responses to Ashram Economics

  1. Personally I prefer the old days back in the 70s when just about everyone was welcome to join the ashrama no matter how crazy or bizarre. Sometimes the most drunken, filthy-dirty person would come to the temple and there was always some new brahmacari ready to enthusiastically clean him up and send him to Bhagavad Gita class. If they stayed they stayed and if they left they left. No harm either way but everything to gain, both for the joiner and the hosts. I saw some of the most unimaginable persons become lifetime devotees of Krsna this way!

    Now joining an ashrama is more like joining a country club, with waiting lists, forms to fill out, interviews, resumee requests, mandatory referrals, and so on. I guess the times have changed…

    I believe the age-old adage is “nothing ventured, nothing gained” although the meaning is still the same.

    • I don`t know… I was living for many years in different asrams and the policy of accepting just anyone often resulted in much disturbance especially if those “anyones” had totally non-spiritual reason for joining (like stealing the temple`s money for example).
      I remember also few unpleasant incidents with mentally sick people who became violent towards other devotees or needed medical help but were neglected instead.

      I guess much depends on ashram`s managers…

    • There is much value in evaluating a candidate’s readiness for monastic life. A prospective monk’s current spiritual understanding and psychological tendencies should be considered in light of the mood and purpose that the ashram management wish to maintain.

      Psychologically imbalanced individuals can be disruptive, if not dangerous, especially when the purpose of the monastery is thoughtful study and application of scripture. Although the challenges caused by conflicting personalities should be embraced as impetus for introspection, unnecessary drama is best avoided.

      Personally, I would find it difficult to serve within or effectively manage an ashram with “crazy … bizarre … drunken, filthy-dirty person[s].” They would be better served by trained psychologists and social workers.

      Still, Bhakti-devi goes wherever she wishes.

  2. From 1975 through 1978 I was the leader of an Iskcon bus party nicknamed ‘The Traveling Psycho Ward’. On this mobile ashram there lived as many as 28 brahmacaris, many of whom were certifiably crazy. The interesting thing about crazy people is that they usually do better when they are regimented. Perhaps that’s one reason why Prabhupada instituted such a regimented program in his ashrams.

    I left Iskcon in 1981, but some 15 years later when I began to go to Iskcon functions again (such as Rathayatra) I ran into some of the crazies who had served with me on the Traveling Psycho Ward. They all seemed to have become sane or at least almost sane, and many credited the bus program with having saved their lives.

    A couple of bus crazies who at the time I thought were absolutely ‘nuts’ have remained life long celibates and become (what I consider) impressive devotees.

    Who would have thunk it??


    • I was pretty crazy myself when I first joined, now that I think about it! I doubt if I ever would have passed the strict criterion required for admittance in most Hare Krishna centers today, so I thank Krsna for allowing me to join when I did! That was with the traveling Radha-Damodara Bus Party in 1974, with Visnujana and Tamal Krsna Maharajas. When Tamal Krsna found out I was underage he immediately dropped me off at the nearest temple…

      I suppose a lot of the criterion for admission depends upon time, circumstance and the type of devotees in charge. The 1970s were definitely different from the present 2000s. A pristine monastery in the country or suburbs would likely have a different standard from an inner city ashrama near skid row. And a temple full of very compassionate, nurturing devotees would surely have a different standard from those inclined to be more ritualistic and demanding.

      • Is there actually a strict criterion required for admittance in most Hare Krishna centers today? What is the Iskcon criterion to be admitted into ashrama life? Does anyone know anything about this?

        • In the Atlanta temple, there is no strict criterion I know of. I could have easily moved in if I wanted.

        • In the LA temple, for instance, there is a long ten-page application form to fill out. A devotee showed it to me once. It had all kinds of personal questions including: Have you ever been treated by a psychiatrist? Have you ever been arrested or convicted of any crime? Do you have any physical health issues? Are you HIV positive? Are you a homosexual? Etc.

          A GALVA devotee was once invited to join the ashrama there but after filling out the application and writing down that he was HIV-positive and homosexual, the invitation was promptly rescinded and all communication stopped. I suppose if he had just lied on the application he would have been easily approved since everyone seemed to like him before that.

          There is no official ISKCON policy for ashrama admissions but the larger, more organized temples seem to be headed in the direction of tighter, more exclusionary standards. Danavir Swami’s Rupanuga Vedic College, for instance, explicitly prohibits homosexuals from joining their ashrama.

    • Archana dropped out of Graduate School to move into the Temple. After 12 years she moved out of the Temple community. After some time went back to Grad school to get her Master’s in Social Work. When she studied abnormal psychology, she did very well on the tests because she knew a devotee for most of the disorders…we used to just call such people “eccentric”, though with hind sight many could have benefited from counseling or medication.

      Had we had trained devotee therapists many of those people might have been helped and many strange incidents avoided. It would seem that we attracted a certain group of devotees (myself included) in the 70’s and 80’s who were somehow able to come to Krishna with the open door policy. Nowadays, although we should always be generous, practical reality dictates that we evaluate those we want to move into the temples. We have to worry about child abusers and all types of severe personality disorders that will disturb everyone and possibly even injure our youth or others. As with everything we have to have a balanced merciful policy that deals with the times we live in.

  3. Hare Krsna all,

    With respect to the ‘crazies’, I do have one question. Is it possible that if some devotees might’ve had strong desire for something in their previous lives and in this life although their subconscious might’ve been wired towards the fulfillment of those desires, their hearts have turned towards bhakti owing to grace. However, due to the subconscious still being ‘stuck in the past’, there is a discrepancy between what the heart wants and what the mind/subconscious wants, owing to people acting out of the norm. Is such a thing possible? If so, how can it be overcome?

    • My Gurudeva explained to me once that spiritual life and psychological development run on different tracks. He said that it’s quite possible one could be advanced in bhakti and be completely dysfunctional on a psychological/social level. Due to this fact the solution to problems in either realm need to be addressed with tools relevant to each; spiritual progress is born out of surrender, etc., while psychological dysfunction is best handled with professional help.

      • Hare Krsna,

        Citta Hari Prabhu,

        I can certainly agree that one could be advanced in bhakti and be dysfunctional when seen from a social perspective. But does this only apply to those in advanced stages of devotion? I mean, for those who are not advanced but are pre-madhyama stage or even pre-kanistha stage, if psychological help is required then would this not be seen as limiting the power of Bhakti-devi?

        Also, this site is awesome!

        • It may be the case that a devotee who has psychological issues needs to work on them in order to be settled enough to do sadhana. But this is not a limitation on Bhaktidevi herself; it just means that one’s conditioning prevents one from taking advantage of the practices.

        • Psychological care is a type of medial care that applies to one’s mental condition. One in need of it should get it, just as one in need of physical care should get it and not think that bhakti will replace this care or that seeing a doctor somehow limits the power of bhakti. Bhakti can do anything, but she tends to nurture the atma and only secondarily one’s material body and mind in ways that appear in advanced stages of bhakti. She can and does affect even people who are mentally ill even when they cannot engage directly in sadhana, but to do sadhana and live in particular environment to do so one must take one’s psychology into consideration. Is one suited to live in a communal setting, for example? These are practical considerations, and we should be practical and use common sense.

          I do believe the idea behind psychology from a Gaudiya perspective is to help situate one in sattva guna, in as much as sattva guna constitutes being materially well balanced. As Gauravani pointed out, to attain suddha-sattva requires bhakti.

  4. Could it be said that psychological therapy can always situate one in sattva guna, a platform from which one can pursue spiritual life?

  5. Personally, I think the goals of psychotherapy and sadhana are quite similar.

    Both aim at changing conscious and unconscious programs through awareness and new conceptions in order to turn the mind into a friend, who supports the pursuit of ones ideals instead of causing disturbances.

    The difference between the two is that psychotherapy often aims at making the mind fit for material society whereas sadhana aims at making the mind fit for spiritual life.

    In my opinion it is counterproductive to completely separate the goals of the two, that is to not harmonize them, because usually the therapy is more effective when it is spiritually oriented. The reason is that often psychological dysfunctionality is caused exactly because spiritual and material goals and programs conflict.

    And I understand that ultimately all psychological disturbances stem from spiritual misconceptions about life and lack of knowledge of our own eternal self and of the loving care of our eternal source.

    A therapeutically approach that fails to address the actual cause of a disease, and instead is only able to reach apparent causes such as a lack of attention and acceptance by ones parents, may lead to stop unhealthy self-judgements and feelings of guilt, only to target them towards ones elders, or the society at large, or life in general, or even God, which wouldn’t be healthy on a long run either.

    Especially devotees who by nature have spiritual goals and worldviews should look for therapies that don’t conflict with their spiritual ambitions. The therapy should help him/her to become aware of the ultimate reason behind ones fears, which is the feeling of separation from our eternal loving source and maybe a feeling of being rejected by our divine mother/father, feelings that lead to all kind of more or less unnatural attempts to fill our souls longings for safety, love, friendship, abundance, beauty and joy.

    Classical psychotherapy may also help in achieving that depending on the sensibility and depth of the therapist, although usually it is a rather slow process.

    To summarize:
    Therapy without spiritual orientation or without the goal to heighten ones conscious awareness of oneself and life, may at best help temporarily to make one functional for material society. But it will not be able to help anyone substantially, what to speak of a struggling devotee, instead it might even cause more confusion.

    But I think there are many spiritually oriented therapies on the market nowadays.

    And I think, each spiritual culture including Gaudiya Vaisnavism should not only concentrate on timeless teachings, rituals and sadhana, but offer a more psychological oriented approach as well, an approach which shows the connection between our free will, spiritual principles, laws of life, beliefsystems, our present view of reality and ones mental conditionings. And an approach which not only explains these connections but on a practical level also transforms mental roadblocks into stepping stones for material and spiritual progress.

    I at least hope and believe that in the near future there will be Krsna conscious metaphysical healing centres that provide nurturance for body, mind and soul.

    • madan gopal das

      As a psychotherapist and a devotee, I have to disagree with many of your points of view regarding therapy for devotees.
      I see that when devotees try to merge therapy with their “religion”, they can end up watering down both. Psychotherapy works for spiritual or non-spiritual people because it is not biased towards either. It is biased towards helping the patient achieve his/her mental health goals – which are not “spiritual” per say.

      I personally find that psychotherapy, like the medical field, does well to be divorced from religion. You mention that some therapies incorporate spirituality. While this is true, and addressing spirituality issues in the course of therapy may be beneficial depending upon the patient’s needs, these therapies in no way address specifics about one’s spiritual practice, or offer spiritual advice. In fact, “spirituality” as it is defined in mental health may mean many different things to many different people. And that is good! One person’s spirituality may look like another’s materialism.

      Psychotherapy is a tool for addressing maladaptive ways of thinking, behavior and/or conditioning which cause suffering in a person’s life. There is a wide spectrum of theories on how to address a person’s presenting mental health problem; looking back in the person’s developmental history with the aim of awarding insight, addressing behavior, addressing a person’s thought process, etc., etc. These are not philosophical theories directed towards philosophical questions about our existence, they are rather psychological theories directed towards solving psychological (mental) problems of life. They address one aspect of our being – the mental aspect, and not the physical or spiritual aspects of our existence.

      With regard to this discussion, the functions of the mind and the heart are much different. While the mind may require a psychotherapist to assist in achieving better mental functioning, the heart requires a sadhu for teaching lessons in divine love. The guru is like a heart doctor! But the struggles of our head, of personality and relationship conflicts, of how we behave and think and the development of our personality; these require assistance of a head doctor.

      While you say the goal of both therapy and sadhana is to make the mind into a friend, I find that too simplistic. Actually, a by-product of yoga is that the mind becomes a friend. But bhakti, being different than yoga, is about the heart. If one’s mind is inhibiting the development of the heart, the melting of the heart in bhakti, one likely needs therapy to help one live in better peace with the mind. We want the mind to fall in line behind the heart of bhakti. We want the heart to steal the mind away from it’s troubles. Giving the heart to Krsna is not dependent upon the mind.

      Finally, I just want to emphasize that I don’t think the head doctor and the heart doctor should be the same person – because they are working on different platforms. Dual relationships cause problems. I often find that devotees have resisted therapy because they feel a therapist who is not a devotee cannot understand their issues. I believe quite the contrary; I think such devotees would do well for their mental health to branch out and see that they can be helped by people outside of their cultural group.
      A therapist receives training in cultural competence and works with the problem and how it is affecting the life of the individual. Just like you don’t need to go to a devotee eye doctor to get tested and have a prescription made so that you can see better, a mental health professional can help address your psychological issues without being a devotee, or even a “spiritualist”. Don’t make the guru be a therapist, and don’t make a therapist into your guru. They have different expertise…

      • What about transpersonal psychology. Doesn’t it begin with the premise that the self is ultimately something that is transcendent?

        • I can’t say I know anything about it, except that it doesn’t seem to me to have a developed theory, method of treatment, etc. Rather it seems like a perspective that developed out of a consistent observation that mental health treatment under the “medical model” was missing something by ignoring the spiritual/religious aspect of the human experience. I can’t say that it is anything I’ve come across in academics, more than just a recognition of the need to include spirituality in the understanding of the human psyche and as an important need for many human beings.

          Certainly spirituality is addressed in modern therapy, but my guess is that it is within a framework of a developed clinical theory or treatment modality. For most spiritual issues, people see their rabbi, pastoral counselor, guru, etc.

          It is difficult to think of how to “treat” spiritual problems. First, because how people define their own spirituality is much too broad. Second, if one takes the authority to define what spirituality is, you are on the verge of creating a new religion. (See Scientology)
          Third, I think when someone takes the middle road in trying to define it, while keeping it broad and consistent with a universal understanding, it begins to look like new age mumbo jumbo. This is probably the space where impersonalist spiritual paths can share a comfortable connection with psychology because of the less restrictive definitions of spirituality. Hence the many Buddhist psychology books in the marketplace.

          • Dear Madan Gopal,

            I think there is good reason to consider spiritual issues in mental therapy. Of course, for the sake of explaining things we may have to distinguish departments, like distinguish spirituality from mental sciences. But in order to practically and effectively work with fields of knowledge it is usually not very helpful to forget about the connections. And I think there definitely is a strong connection between mental phenomena and spiritual issues.

            You probably will agree that there is a succession from the physical to the mental field and from the mental field to the spiritual field and vice versa. And these areas touch or overlap each other. There are more and more doctors for instance that see a connection between bodily diseases and mental states. And they say that you cannot heal the bodily symptoms without addressing the underlying mental programs (maybe you could suppress the symptoms but not heal the person).

            The same holds for the connection between mental disturbances and spiritual causes. I cannot think of any mental issue that upon analysis will not lead to spiritual questions. I do not say that mental therapies cannot help without spiritual considerations. Maybe symptoms can be healed, but my conviction is, that other symptoms will appear instead sooner or later.

            Regarding guru and therapist: Yes, I agree that they do not have to be the same person. But I do think, that it is very helpful for both to see the connections between both areas of expertise in order to be able to serve in a more holistic way. I think this holds for all professions. It is good to have specialists for different areas. But if a specialist lacks to see how his work affects other areas or vice versa, he will not always deliver satisfactory solutions. His creations may even cause disturbances for his customer and for specialists of other fields of work. (Think of craftsmen who only see their own field. That often leads to unnecessary problems in the field of construction.)

            Of course there are a lot of different spiritual groups with different spiritual practices. And I do not suggest that the therapist has to give advices on sadhana and rituals. But it may be necessary that he has a spiritual outlook that helps to appreciate the orientation and the practice of the patient, and that helps him to view the problems of the patient in a holistic way.

            I don’t think that the fact that there are different spiritual conceptions on the market has to lead to the conclusion that mental doctors shouldn’t even try to integrate spiritual principles in their work. In any case the therapist will have a certain world view that impacts his work. The question is which world view helps him to have the best results. And in my opinion a spiritual one is the best. We do not live in isolated segments that do not touch. We live in a complex system where everything affects everything. And a spiritual world view gives the best overview and understanding of life. Isn’t that one possible definition of spirituality, that it is a science that questions the eternal laws and functions of all that is? And wouldn’t such an approach help to put mental problems into perspective, which in turn would lead to better and more consistent results?

            The patient himself is free to choose the kind of therapist whose spiritual worldview translates into his work in ways that is most appropriate for the patient’s individual case.

            Yes, I agree, the goal of sadhana is the cultivation of love. But in order to be effective, we have to be able to cooperate with the mind, otherwise we will not be able to do sadhana on a long run.

            Yes, the functions of the heart and mind are different. But they affect each other. And therefore they both should be taken into consideration by the specialists of each field, that is by the guru and the doctor.

            And the fact that some devotees desire devotee therapists may hint at that there is an actual need for holistic therapists.

            We live in times where souls take birth with different mental conditionings and spiritual standing then in former centuries. Not all, but more and more people question more deeply the reasons for certain phenomena and look for wholesome solutions, including for their own mental challenges. People are well informed and question more often treatments by doctors and therapists that don’t rest on a positive, holistic and loving worldview.

            You are a devotee. Doesn’t it help your work as a therapist to view your patient and his/her predicaments from your spiritual standpoint? Not only that you now probably have more compassion for your patients, but didn’t your devotional training lead to different views and understandings of peoples problems? And isn’t a doctor with an optimistic spiritual worldview better equipped to believe in the patient’s betterment than somebody who has a materialistic world view, that doesn’t advocate that everything is possible?

      • Madanji–I think you are opening up a huge topic here at least for my wife and I which is a bit off topic on this post and could take a considerable discussion. I share the following for whoever might be interested in this topic–which is not a new one either for devotees. We attended a meeting over 15 years ago with devotee mental professionals and healers like myself about the importance of coming up with a KC paradigm or “conceptual orientation” for therapy. Although I don’t have your training I know a bit about therapy and have a living resource. Perhaps you are wearing your secular legal therapist hat here in this comment. I think Swamis definition of therapy is a good one.

        When Archana first began working as a therapist when the psychiatrist found out she had asked a client’s religion and was using that as an adjunct in therapy he criticized her. When she left the clinic 12 years later it was required on the intake to ask the client their religion, spiritual orientation etc, and it was recognized that the religion or spiritual belief of the client could be a helpful asset in therapy.

        Certainly one shouldn’t impose one’s belief system on a client when you work in a regular clinic, but if one works primarily with devotees as does my wife (and which I feel there should be in every devotee community), the rules are different. It is natural for devotees or a person of any religion to prefer to work with someone of their faith–provided they are qualified. My understanding is that part of the therapeutic alliance is to work with the clients culture and beliefs.

        In addition to her professional skills a lot of what my wife does is get devotees to focus on their sadhana as it is often weak, and help them to have faith in Krishna as their friend and well-wisher. Their presenting problem is often an impediment to this, and thus some remedial psychological process may be necessary to get them to that point. In addition it depends on the severity of their problem. Admitted she works with very functional devotees by design since she works primarily on the phone.

        So, again this is a big topic, which might warrant sitting down and discussing it.

  6. madan gopal das

    Vrajendra Nandana,
    I think we are in agreement about the importance of a “holistic” viewpoint in mental health treatment. I just want to emphasize that therapy is patient centered, and that spirituality may only be one component of a patient’s “problem”, if it is part of the reason they see a psychotherapist at all.

    I cannot think of any mental issue that upon analysis will not lead to spiritual questions.

    This is because your point of view is rooted in your spiritual beliefs. That is great! However, many people don’t share your spiritual beliefs and may think differently.

    I do think, that it is very helpful for both (guru and therapist) to see the connections between both areas of expertise in order to be able to serve in a more holistic way.

    Agreed. In my opinion a qualified guru recognizes psychological problems in his/her students and refers them to a professional for treatment. I see bad things happen when a guru thinks him or herself qualified to provide psychological counseling without training in it. Similarly, a good therapist refers a patient to their spiritual support system for spiritual issues that cannot be generally dealt with in therapy.

    Doesn’t it help your work as a therapist to view your patient and his/her predicaments from your spiritual standpoint?

    The softening of the heart that is inherent in bhakti practice moves me towards the pursuit of helping people. As much as bhakti informs my sense of self, that may come across in my personality. But bhakti philosophy and practice does not inform my professional practice. It cannot, because of the ethics of professional practice. They influence who I am, and to some degree how I present myself as a therapist, but none of that is brought out in therapy.
    What I am cautioning against is an ethnocentric worldview with the desire to influence other people with one’s own spiritual beliefs. Therapy is not a place for preaching.

    Seeing a patient holistically, we should appreciate that there may not be a distinctly spiritual and material side to them. It is not black and white; treatment is not “spiritual” and addressing the “root cause” of suffering, or “materialistic” and only helping materialists learn how to enjoy better. Rather, the variety of human experience and “problems” in life are on a broad spectrum and one must help people from where they are at, rather than try to bring them to one’s own position.

    • Dear Madan Gopal,

      more or less I agree with your points and appreciate them. The subtleties on which I may still disagree could be probably only harmonized if we would have a personal discussion under a shady tree at the Yamuna.

      Thanks for the nice exchange, but I think I quit for now as I feel unable to express all my thoughts on this topic precisely enough, partially also because of my limited command of English.

      Maybe we meet someday at the Yamuna…

      All the best.

  7. I understand that we have veered off-topic from the original intent of the article. But on the subject of psychology and religion, I am curious what devotees have to say about this quote from Carl Jung. Jung seems to say that at one time, religion offered the psychological solutions of the day. Why is religion unable to do so anymore? Is it that psychology advanced beyond the knowledge that religion offers?

    “Why is psychology the youngest of the empirical sciences? Why have we not long since discovered the unconscious and raised up its treasure-house of eternal images? Simply because we had a religious formula for everything psychic and one that is far more beautiful and comprehensive than immediate experience. Though the Christian view of the world has paled for many people, the symbolic treasure rooms of the East are still full of marvels that can nourish for a long time to come the passion for show and new clothes. What is more, these images-be they Christian or Buddhist or what you will-are lovely, mysterious, richly intuitive. Naturally, the more familiar we are with them the more does constant usage polish them smooth, so that what remains is only banal superficiality and meaningless paradox.”

    “Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious” (1935). In CW 9, Part I: The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. P. 11

Leave a Reply to inquirer Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Back to Top ↑