Sermon III – Abraxas

Robert Juliano
C.G. Jung. The Red Book
9 aede utSSdezecpfmbohraochos arndee 20eoso2lreudc0ud  ·
Jung’s Septem Sermones ad Mortuos Based on Commentaries by Philemon, Hoeller, and
Ribi: Sermon III – Abraxas
In the last note on Sermon II, we moved from the Pleroma to its unfolding in creation which
began with the first gods – The Sun God, the Devil, and the highest God, Abraxas. Not much
was said about Abraxas in the last sermon, but because the dead specifically requested Philemon
talk about “the highest God” in this sermon, we learn much more about him here. Before
continuing, I think it is important to remind ourselves what the Septem Sermones ad Mortuos
are. Shamdasani writes that they are a culmination of Jung’s fantasies up to the beginning of
1916. He writes “It is a psychological cosmology cast in the form of a gnostic creation myth. In
Jung’s fantasies, a new God had been born in his soul, the God who is the son of the frogs,
Abraxas. Jung understood this symbolically. He saw this figure as representing the uniting of the
Christian God with Satan, and hence as depicting a transformation of the Western God-image.
Not until 1952 in Answer to Job did Jung elaborate on this theme in public.”
The Pleroma and Abraxas
The sermons began (i.e., Sermon I) by describing in antinomial terms the qualities of the
pleroma. This includes the opposites of Fullness and Emptiness, light and darkness, one and the
many, etc. Ribi observes that some of these pairs of opposites are repeated as descriptions of
Abraxas, but that there is a change of perspective – that of energy and dynamics. The contrast
between the pleroma and Abraxas reminds one of the contrast between static principles and the
dynamics of the psyche. Hoeller writes “It is readily recognized, however, that while in his
description of the pleroma he [Jung] emphasized the existence of the numberless pairs of
opposites which exist as equilibrated qualities of the Pleroma, in his characterization of Abraxas,
he is particularly intent upon bringing forth the dynamic, overwhelming power and activity of
the cosmic chanticleer.” Abraxas, Hoeller writes, “is the closest approximation to an active
manifestation of the Pleroma one may imagine.” Abraxas reminds one of the contrast between
static principles and the dynamics of the psyche. Hoeller writes “It is readily recognized,
however, that while in his description of the pleroma he [Jung] emphasized the existence of the
numberless pairs of opposites which exist as equilibrated qualities of the Pleroma, in his
characterization of Abraxas, he is particularly intent upon bringing forth the dynamic,
overwhelming power and activity of the cosmic chanticleer.” Abraxas, Hoeller writes, “is the
closest approximation to an active manifestation of the Pleroma one may imagine.”
Here, I am reminded of a similar contrast in Brahmanism – the contrast between Brahman and
personifications of it such as Brahma. Dr. Heinrich Zimmer writes “The former refers to the
transcendent and immanent Absolute; the latter is an anthropomorphic personification of the
Creator-Demiurge,” though it should be noted that Vishnu and Shiva, both gods above Brahma,
come far closer to personifying Brahman. On this, Zimmer writes “Among the divinities of the
Hindu pantheon, only those not too closely associated with special functions, activities, or
departments of nature, can serve as embodiments of the personified Absolute.” He goes on to
write “Out of Brahman, the Absolute, proceed the energies of Nature, to produce our world of
individuated forms, the swarming world of our empirical experience, which is characterized by
limitations, polarities, antagonisms and co-operation,” much like that which occurs in the
unfolding of the pleroma which begins with the creation of Abraxas, the Sun God, and the Devil.
Abraxas: The Unknown God
In the second sermon, Philemon tells the dead that humankind forgot Abraxas and that he is
more indefinite than God (Helios) and the Devil. Abraxas is the effectiveness behind both, but it
is difficult for us to experience such subtlety. Philemon also says that “The power of Abraxas is
twofold; but you do not see it, because in your eyes the warring opposites of this power are
canceled out.” Indeed, it is difficult to perceive something in which the opposites are balanced.
Ribi writes “Abraxas is such an indeterminate dynamic that it cannot be seen, because we can
only see and recognize it in determinate form, as an object or symbol, or as directed desire.” Ribi
relates this to the psyche as follows: “Psychic phenomena are always perceived as dynamic, and
for this, Abraxas is the most personal expression. This dynamic is a characteristic of the
unconscious, which has not yet become accessible as an object of consciousness.” I found it very
useful to work with Jung’s notion of psychic energy (libido) in order to amplify this dynamic.
The modern concept of energy is in many ways a very subtle idea which has undergone a long
process of differentiation from far older ideas such as mana. Energy is not really a thing. It is,
instead, an abstraction grounded upon the movement of objects. And the concept is applicable to
both realms of experience – the outer realm of matter (physis) and the inner realm of the psyche.
Crucially, it is a concept that is very easy to hypostatize in both realms.
Energy can be measured in both realms. In the realm of the psyche, Jung has written that
psychological value intensities are quantitative estimates of energy. There are personal estimates
of psychological value intensities and objective estimates. The objective estimate of
psychological value intensity, according to Jung, is “the constellating power of the nuclear
element.” Jung writes “But what means have we of estimating the energic value of the
constellating power which enriches the complex with associations? We can estimate this
quantum of energy in various ways: (1) from the relative number of constellations effected by
the nuclear element; (2) from the relative frequency and intensity of the reactions indicating a
disturbance or complex; (3) from the intensity of the accompanying affects.”
The difficulty in perceiving Abraxas reminds me very much of the difficulty of doing so with
respect to energy – we can only perceive them based on their effect on other things. This is made
more complicated in the case of Abraxas because, while the effects on things may be traced back
as far as the two Gods – Helios and the Devil, it is exceedingly difficult to trace them back
further to Abraxas who embodies the effectiveness that ground Helios and the Devil.
In general, Philemon’s advice to Jung about Abraxas is clear - one is to know Abraxas, but not
understand him. He says “The God whom I know is this and that and just as much this other and
that other. Therefore no one can understand this God, but it is possible to know him, and
therefore I speak and teach him.”
In Abraxas, the pairs of opposites are balanced. Likewise, with respect to psychic energy, Jung
writes that in progression of libido, “the pairs of opposites are united in the coordinated flow of
psychic processes. Their working together makes possible the balanced regularity of these
processes, which without this inner polarity would become one-sided and unreasonable.” But,
there is a fundamental difference between progression and development. Jung writes
“progression should not be confused with development, for the continuous flow or current of life
is not necessarily development and differentiation.” For, development requires the possibility of
change. In Answer to Job (CW 11), Jung amplifies what human individuals bring to the picture,
how we complement the demiurge, and the importance of Divine-human collaboration.
Abraxas: The Demiurge
Long ago, the ancient Gnostics assessed and reflected deeply on God and His creation. In doing
so, they came to a conclusion – that God and His creation were imperfect. And either through
other philosophical/spiritual traditions or through their own experiences of the psyche, they
concluded that the God of creation was not the Unknowable God (the One). This God of creation
they labeled the demiurge (Latin: demiurgus, Greek δημιουργός or dēmiurgós) which means
craftsman or creator.
The notion of the demiurge is very ancient and long preceded the birth of Gnosticism in the first
and second centuries A.D. And there are many myths which feature the demiurge. Quispel writes
“The very archaic Orphic myth of the demiurge Phanes, who broke the world egg and fashioned
the heaven and the earth from the two halfs of its shell, was perhaps already known to Plato
when he wrote his Timaeus about the demiurge who makes the visible world, and certainly
influenced the pre-Christian Jewish Gnôstikoi in Alexandria, who produced the Codex
Brucianus and the Apocryphon of John, among others, and held that the creator of this world is
malicious.”
The Gnostic myths of the demiurge vary – some state that the demiurge arose from chaos, others
say that he was created by Sophia, and still others say that Sophia gave birth to the demiurge.
Crucially, though, in Appendix C of the Red Book (which contains an unedited entry of Black
Book 5) which Sonu indicates is an overview of the cosmology of the Seven Sermons to the
Dead, Jung’s Soul tells him “Abraxas is to be feared. Therefore it was a deliverance when he
separated himself from me.” From this, one could argue that the Soul is speaking in the voice of
Sophia and that Abraxas is the demiurge.
In many traditions of Gnosticism, the demiurge is viewed quite negatively. So, when Jung’s Soul
says that Abraxas is to be feared, one could get the impression that Abraxas is evil. Furthermore,
Philemon himself says that Abraxas is terrible. We will explore this a bit in the last section, but I
wanted to bring awareness to this negative judgement of the demiurge, such a judgement absent
in the Orphic and Greek traditions, to serve as background on Hoeller’s view of Abraxas as
demiurge.
Hoeller had seen neither the Red Book nor the Black Books when he wrote his commentary in
1984. Thus, Appendix C was unavailable to him when he wrote “It would be a grave
misapprehension to equate Abraxas with some sort of a conventional Gnostic demiurge. It would
be much more correct to say that he is the force without which all demiurges would cease to
create.” Jung, on the other hand, came to the opinion that “Abraxas is really identical with the
Demiurgos, the world creator.”
Izdubar: Jung’s Experience of the Rebirth of a God
Here, I just wanted to have a short section on connecting Sermon III to Jung’s previous
experiences in the Red Book. As you recall, in Liber Secundus, Jung meets Izdubar and his
science wounds the great god. He dies, but with Jung’s help, he is reborn. Part of that is
accomplished by a set of Incantations. Interestingly enough, the attributes contained in those
Incantations are attributed to Abraxas in Sermons II and III.
Sonu writes in a footnote in the Red Book: “Roscher notes that ‘As a God, Izdubar is associated
with the Sun-God.’ The incubation and rebirth of Izdubar follows the classic pattern of solar
myths.” He also writes that “Izdubar was an early name given the figure now known as
Gilgamesh. This was based on a mistranscription. In 1906 Peter Jensen noted: ‘It has now been
established that Gilgamesch is the chief protagonist of the epic, and not Gistchubar or Izdubar as
assumed previously’”
Abraxas: Liberator?
Philemon says “Abraxas is terrible.” I mentioned earlier that the demiurge was looked down
upon in some of the Gnostic traditions. And to hear Philemon say that he is “terrible” and that
Jung’s Soul says he should be feared does not put Abraxas in a very positive light. But, let us
look deeper into this. Take the word “terrible,” for example. The modern use of this word can
imply a sense of evil is present. But, Hoeller does not believe that this is what Philemon meant to
communicate given his description of Abraxas as embodying opposites in balance. Instead,
Hoeller brings us back to the Renaissance and looks at the related word “terribilita.” Hoeller
writes that this word was used to express “a quality to be both feared and admired and was said
to appertain to all naturally great and outstanding persons.” Thus, when the sermons say Abraxas
is terrible, the terribleness, according to Hoeller, “is not the hallmark of evil or of benighted
arrogance, as one might find in the case of demiurge, but rather it is the natural manifestation of
titanic force, which inevitably fills human consciousness with dread and trembling.”
Therefore, Abraxas should not be seen in such a negative light. And we it bears repeating once
again that not all Gnostic traditions considered the demiurge in a negative light – some viewed
the demiurge in a positive one, as did the Orphics and the Greeks before them. Hoeller even
views Abraxas as being a liberator, though as I mentioned before, not a Gnostic demiurge. He
wrote “Abraxas, as the all-pervading energy of being, is thus the sum of and the liberator from
the cycle of necessity, freeing man from the agony of time, or as Mircea Eliade called it, the
terror of history.”
Hoeller expands on what he means by liberation: “Between the two often-mentioned alternatives
of a linear, historical ego-consciousness and a circular, ahistorical unconsciousness, Abraxas
stands as the third possibility of the eternally available timeless moment, the eternal now, the
recognition and utilization of which brings freedom from time both in its linear and its cyclic
aspects.” He also writes “Not only does Abraxas bring freedom from the tedium of time - which
brings frustration, old age, illness and ultimately death - but he also stops the wheel of the cycles.
Thus, he puts an end to repetitious experience, the blind, unconscious reliving of aeons of
unprofitable cosmic busy-work resulting in nothing but further involvement in concerns that are
irrelevant to the soul.” Finally he writes that Abraxas is the “true archetype of man’s potential of
spiritual freedom and independence from unconscious psychological pressures and compulsions”
and that he is the “liberating force whereby wisdom and love are enabled to accomplish their
work of emancipating the human soul from the thralldom of the cosmos.”
References
The Gnostic Jung and the Seven Sermons to the Dead by Stephan Hoeller
“On Psychic Energy” in Collected Works of C. G. Jung, Volume 8
Liber Novus by C. G. Jung
“Hermann Hesse and Gnosis” in Gnostica, Judaica, Catholica: Collected Essays of Gilles
Quispel
“The Demiurge in the Apocryphon of John” in Gnostica, Judaica, Catholica: Collected Essays
of Gilles Quispel
“Valentinian Gnosis and the Apocryphon of John” in Gnostica, Judaica, Catholica: Collected
Essays of Gilles Quispel
The Search for Roots: C. G. Jung and the Tradition of Gnosis by Alfred Ribi
Myths and Symbols in Indian Art and Civilization by Heinrich Zimmer
Additional Resources
A. Seven Sermons to the Dead – Stephan A. Hoeller Translation (contained in Dr. Hoeller’s The
Gnostic Jung)
http://www.gnosis.org/library/7Sermons_hoeller_trans.htm
B. Seven Sermons to the Dead – H. G. Baynes Translation (contained in MDR)
http://www.gnosis.org/library/7Sermons.htm
C. Reflections on Jung’s “Septem Sermones ad Mortuos” Based on Commentaries by Philemon,
Hoeller, and Ribi: Sermon II – God, the Devil, and Abraxas
https://www.facebook.com/story/graphql_permalink/...