Psychology and Religion (Psychology and Religious Experience)

Assagioli presents his vision of a spiritual psychology that can be a valuable partner to religion, focusing on the raw data of spiritual experience. 

By Roberto Assagioli, M.D., Director of the Institute of Psychosynthesis, Date unknown, From the Assagioli Archive in Florence, Doc. #22057. Formatted and edited with notes by Jan Kuniholm^[i]

Abstract: This essay deals only with psychology and religious experiences. Psychology is not an organized science at present, but rather a series of diverse and mutually exclusive schools. The earliest psychology tried to mimic the physical sciences studying primitive manifestations of phenomena. A second trend studied external phenomena through observation and experiment. Another more fruitful trend was the study of the abnormal and pathological. Finally there has been a trend toward practical application of the findings of psychology. Many of the earlier psychologists showed a marked lack of understanding of religion. There were some investigators who created bridges between the two contending camps, notably William James. Others have followed who have made specific studies of spiritual experiences, notably Bucke, Hall, and Jung. On the other side there have been several ecclesiastics who have appreciated the findings of psychology. But so far there has been no satisfactory “spiritual psychology,” and I have attempted to develop such an inclusive psychology in psychosynthesis. There follows a brief treatment of the main aspects of psychosynthesis, discussing the main aspects as shown in the famous oval diagram. A spiritual psychology is in full accord with the inner experience of philosophic and religious people and religious philosophy. Spiritual psychology affirms the existence of the super-conscious region and of the Spiritual Self, but as a science it does not go beyond that point. Judaism has an advantage in being in harmony with spiritual psychology more than other religions. Examples are provided. One of the particular uses of spiritual psychology is to provide a guideline to physicians and therapists in responding to the crises in peoples’ spiritual life. The present climate is favorable for increased cooperation between psychology and religion.

_____________

The subject of the relationship between psychology and religion is so wide and manifold that it cannot be adequately covered within the short time available today. Therefore, I thought that it was advisa­ble, and even necessary, to deal with only one part of it. Thus I shall not speak on this occasion about the sociological, the ritualistic and the symbolic aspects of our theme, although I am well aware of their importance.

May I point out — for my justification — that others who have dealt with this subject at greater length have been obliged to adopt, or have chosen, similar delimitations. For instance Prof. Jung in his three Ter­ry lectures on Psychology and Religion delivered at Yale University has confined himself almost exclusively to the consideration of the symbolic aspect.

Moreover the aspect of the subject which I have chosen seems to be the central, the essential one; in any case it is that which logically should be taken up before any other — I mean “Psychology and Religions Experiences.”

In the treatment of our subject, even thus limited, we are confron­ted, right at the outset, with a serious difficulty and complication, which is due to the peculiar situation existing in the psychological field.

One can say that there is not, at present, an organized science of psychology in the same sense as there are the sciences of physiology, geology or astronomy. Also in these sciences there are differences and conflicts between the various schools, but in psychology they are deeper and more fundamental. Indeed, more than “psychology” tout court,^[i] there is a series of diverse, and to some extent mutually exclusive, psycholo­gies. As you well know, there is experimental psychology, behavioristic psychology, complex psychology, social psychology, parapsychology, and others.

The peculiar development of modern psychological investigation ac­counts for the serious and confused situation existing at present. Psychology — up to comparatively recent times, that is up to around 1875 — [was] subservient to philosophy and, to some extent, to theology. Then the attempt was made to make of it an independent science, and this move was quite legitimate. But reactions have the unfortunate tendency to go to extremes and — in the case of psychology such reaction coincided with the strong prevalence of a materialistic and positivistic bias in the culture of the times — the result was that psychology became, in its attitude and methods, subservient to the natural sciences. Its exponents attempted to explore the inner world of men with the same conceptions and by the same methods which were being used in the scientific investigation and technical exploitation of the external world. Thus “experi­mental psychology” was started. It adopted just the same analytical and quantitative procedures used in physics, and in psychology it rigidly excluded from its field of research all that could not be reached by these methods. Thus a strange thing happened: the development of a new science which either denied or systematically ignored the existence of that which had previously been conceived as its central and highest object; that is, [it became] what Lange called “a psychology without a soul.” ^[ii]

The same adherence to the methods of the natural sciences, and to their former positivistic attitude, determined other psychological trends which have characterized modern psychology. 

The first was that of investigation of the origins of psychological phenomena and the studying of their simplest and most primitive manifestations, believing to find in them the “explanation” of their higher and more complex aspects. Thus genetic psychology, in its two main bran­ches of animal psychology and child psychology had a great development.

The second trend was that of studying [external phenomena] both through observation and experiment; the exponents of this method being the Behaviorists. Through their endeavors psychology, which had already lost its soul, was in danger of losing its mind as well; but behaviorism, after a short period of brilliancy, due mostly to its sensational character, was generally discarded.

Another trend was that of the study of the abnormal and of the pa­thological. This has proved the most fruitful, and has brought about much progress in psychology. This fact is not surprising, because that method presents two great advantages: first, it has to take into account man’s personality in its living reality: second, pathological manifestations often isolate and magnify certain factors and elements so that they be­come more easily observable and known.

The chief contribution of this method has been the discovery of the existence of psychological activities outside the field of normal awareness and the demonstration of their importance in human life. But also this abnormal psychology, or psychopathology, has shared with the other branches just mentioned the limitation and the fault of emphasizing the lower, the primitive, and the regressive sides of human nature, and of having the pretension of explaining the higher manifestations by “reducing” them to the lower primitive ones.

There was, finally, the trend towards the practical application and exploitation of the findings of psychology. The best and most useful applications are again to be found in the medical field; that is, the de­velopment of scientific psychotherapy. Other valuable applications how­ever have been made in the fields of education, of vocational guidance, of industry, of business and of the social sciences.

The amount of work accomplished along these various lines has been great, and the net positive results are by no means to be under-estima­ted. Yet it has shown two fundamental deficiencies, which inevitably brought about the present crisis in psychology.

The first, already mentioned, has been that of the development of numerous conflicting schools, each one developing in a one-sided and often extreme way, with little contact with the others, except through fighting.

The second fundamental deficiency is that of neglect, the lack of appreciation, and even the denial of the higher, more evolved and more valuable manifestations of man, and especially of the center of his true self, which alone gives unity, meaning and value to all the rest of his personality. A significant instance of this state of affairs is offered by the way in which the various psychological subjects, are de­veloped in a recent leading textbook. In this volume of about 300 pages, two chapters on The Growth of the Mind in Animals and The Mentality of Apes, occupy 29 pages, and the author passes over with regret what he calls “the fascinating topic of man’s animal ancestry.” But the apparently less fascinating subject of [human] genius is mentioned in less than a page, quite incidentally, in the chapter on The Abnormal, [in the ]section [on] Facial Asymmetry! Intuition is barely mentioned, and it is considered together with sensation, as a lower form of feeling and thinking. There is no reference to such manifestations of human consciousness as illuminations, religious consciousness etc. I do not mention the author and the title of the book, as I prefer to speak of the sin ra­ther than the sinner; and also because it does not constitute an isola­ted example, but it is only one specimen of the prevailing trend existing in academic psychology; apart from this curious lack of proportion, it is a fairly good handbook.

The psychologists representing such materialistic or naturalistic trends were bound to show a marked lack of understanding and of appre­ciation of religion. A number of them tried to “explain away” religion through their biological, sexual, psychoanalytic or sociological theo­ries. I will mention only Leuba,^[iii] Durkheim^[iv] and Freud,^[v] whose book on religion bears the title The Future of an Illusion.

One must admit that, helped by the general trend which prevailed until not long ago, they achieved a certain measure of popularity and of success. Dr. Yeaxlee ^[vi] went so far as to state that “many thoughtful men and women feel that neither the rationalist, the materialist, the social nor the political assault upon the validity of religion, and especially of Christianity, has been nearly as devastating as the at­tack made in the name of modern psychology”. ^[vii]

Of course such unwarranted and sometimes gross onslaughts evoked a corresponding intense reaction from religious circles, a reaction that was generally justified, but which at times went too far, leading to suspicion or disparagement of psychology as a whole, or the denial of some important and valuable discoveries, which have been made, par­ticularly through the use of psychoanalytical methods of investigation — methods which can and should be used keeping them sharply separated and quite independent from the questionable theories of Freud and others. Fortunately there have been several praiseworthy exceptions; there have been several investigators who have created bridges between the two contending camps. The foremost was William James, whose positivistic training and early tendencies did not prevent a growing broad and sympathetic understanding of all sides of human nature and a great moral courage. To this combination of qualities we owe that masterpiece of an unbiased, objective and yet appreciative study, The Varieties of Religious Experience.^[viii]

Another worthy example is that of Prof. William MacDougall who, at a time when, according to James’ expression, “souls were out of fashion,” did not hesitate to write a large book, Body and Mind, dedica­ted to the defense of animism.^[ix]

More recently there have been a good number of psychologists and psychotherapists, who have recognized the proper place and value of religion. Among these we can mention William Brown,^[x] Christian Miller, Graham Howe^[xi] in England; Sheldon,^[xii] Link,^[xiii] Fromm^[xiv] in America; Tournier,^[xv] Maeder,^[xvi]Bovet^[xvii] and Stocker in Switzerland; Urban^[xviii] in Austria; De Sanctis^[xix] in Italy.

I will quote only an explicit statement by Dr. William Brown :

 . . . all analysis does of a destructive kind is to kill false religion, the short-sighted infantile outlook on life that may have held us back . . . As we grow in mind we do not see religion disappearing; on the contrary, it becomes deepened. ^[xx]

Particular mention should be made of some scientific men who studied in a specific way the characteristics of spiritual experiences, chiefly of inner illumination, and of those who have had such experiences. Dr. Bucke with his book Cosmic Consciousness did pioneer work in this field. Dr. Winslow Hall dedicated three books to this subject: Hebrew Illumination, Observes illuminates ( a series of first-hand documents) and Illuminanda: An Experimental Guide (on conditions and methods apt to induce or favor illumination).

But perhaps the most interesting and significant instance is that of Jung. While he deliberately remains on an empirical ground and adopts a phenomenological standpoint, and while also he shows no signs of having had personal religious experiences, he has been obliged by his unbiased observation, both of patients and of normal human beings, to recognize the reality and the value of religious aspects of life.

He has found in his practice that there are people who cannot be cured or be well unless their religious needs and urges are satisfied. He writes, 

“To be ‘normal’ is a splendid ideal for the unsuccessful, for all those who have not yet found an adaptation. But for people who have far more ability than the average, for whom it was never hard to gain successes and to accomplish their share of the world’s work — for them restriction to the normal signifies the bed of Procrustes, unbearable boredom, infernal sterility and hopelessness. Consequently there are therefo­re as many neurotics who become ill because they are only normal as tho­se who become ill because they are not able to become normal.”^[xxi]

Elsewhere, he states that most of his middle-aged patients have, among the causes of their troubles, some religious problem.

From the other shore, from the religious field, there has been a good number of ecclesiastics of the various religions and Churches who have appreciated the findings of psychology, psychoanalysis, and psychiatry and made use of them both in theoretical and practical ways. It is not possible to make now a survey of such utilizations. I can just mention a few of them.

The Rev. Oskar Pfister of Zurich^[xxii] in the early days of psychoanaly­sis applied it in his personal practice and gave an account of how he did it in a little book A New Way to the Old Gospel. Rabbi Liebman,^[xxiii] in his book Peace of Mind emphasized the value of the knowledge of psychiatry for the attainment of a healthy and balan­ced religious outlook and attitude. Prof. Rochedieu at Geneva has lately published a book: Psychologie et Vie Religieuse as the first volume of the Numina collection. (Roulet Ed.).^[xxiv]

An interesting and valuable organized attempt to a fruitful coope­ration between psychology and religion has been made (since 1939) in England by the Guild of Pastoral Psychology^[xxv] which has published about sixty pamphlets.

Yet, in spite of such ‘bridges” between psychology and religion, we must acknowledge that there is not as yet a satisfactory “spiritual psychology”, that is, a psychology which — while accepting and incorpo­rating all the reliable results of investigation on all levels of the human personality and by all truly scientific methods of research — would make a special study of man’s spiritual energies and activities, and of his true innermost nature and reality.

For many years I have attempted to develop such an integral or synthetic psychology — both as an inclusive conception of the human personality and as a coordinated group of methods of psychological treatment, of education and of self-education — which I have called psychosynthesis.

During the time which is still at our disposal, I shall attempt to give a brief outline of it and to point out the contribution which it may offer to the interpretation, to the valuation, and to the har­monious integration of religious experience in the total life of the human personality and of human groups.

To illustrate such a conception of the constitution of the human being in its living concrete reality, a diagram may be helpful. Of course I am quite aware that it is a crude and elementary attempt, which can give only a structural, static, almost anatomical represen­tation of our inner constitution, while it leaves out its dynamic as­pects, which is the most important and essential. But I am of the opi­nion that here, as. in every other science, gradual steps must be taken, progressive approximations must be made, and, that, especially when dealing with a reality so plastic and elusive as our psychological li­fe, it is important not to lose sight of the mains lines, as well as of the fundamental differences. Otherwise the undominated multiplicity confuses the mind, the wealth of particulars hides the picture as a whole and prevents our realizing the perspective significance and pur­pose and value of its different parts.

With these reservations and qualifications, here is the chart :

1. THE LOWER UNCONSCIOUS.

This contains, or is the origin of:

1. The elementary psychological activities which direct the life of the body: the psychism of cells and organs; the intelligent coordination of bodily functions.
2. The various instincts and lower passions.
3. Many “complexes” charged with intense emotions, the product of our recent and remote past.
4. Dreams and imaginations of an inferior kind.
5. Various morbid manifestations, such as phobias, obsessive and delirious ideas.

1. THE MIDDLE UNCONSCIOUS.

This is formed of psychological elements similar to those of our waking consciousness and easily accessible to it. In this inner region our va­rious experiences are assimilated, our average mental and imaginative activities are elaborated.

1. THE HIGHER UNCONSCIOUS OR SUPERCONSCIOUS.

From this region we receive our higher intuitions and inspira­tions, either artistic, philosophical or scientific. Here is the source of genius and of the mystical states of contemplation, illumination, ecstasy. In this realm are latent many spiritual energies and the higher psychic powers.

1. WAKING CONSCIOUSNESS.

Many use this term, which scientifically is not quite accurate, but which is clear and convenient for practical purposes to indicate that part of our personality of which we are directly aware; the inces­sant flow of sensations, images, thoughts, feelings, desires, impulses, which we can observe and judge.

• THE NORMAL CONSCIOUS SELF OR “I”.

The self is often confused with our conscious personality just described, but in reality it is quite different from it. Anyone who has had some training in introspection can ascertain this beyond any doubt.

The changing contents of our consciousness (the sensations, thoughts, feelings, etc.) are one thing, while the “I”, the Self, the center of our con­sciousness, is another; it contains, so to speak, those elements and is aware of them. Prom a certain point of view, this difference can be com­pared with that existing between the white lighted area on a screen and the various cinematographic pictures which are projected upon it.

But “the man in the street,” and even many well-educated and in­telligent people, do not take the trouble to observe themselves and to dis­criminate; they allow themselves to drift on the surface of the “mind­stream,” and identify themselves with its successive waves, with the changing contents of their consciousness.

• THE SPIRITUAL SELF.

The conscious self is not only generally merged in the ceaseless flow of the psychological elements, but it often seems to disappear and sink into nothingness at such moments when we fall asleep, when we have lost consciousness in a swoon, or when we are under the effect of a drug or the influence of a hypnotist. And when we awake, our self mysteriously reappears and we do not know how or whence — a fact that, if closely considered, is truly baffling and disturbing. This, and many other considerations too numerous to mention at present, lead us to the admission that “behind” or “above” the conscious self, there must be a permanent spiritual Center, the true Self. This spiritual Self is fixed, unchan­ging, unaffected by the flow of the “mind stream” or by bodily conditions and the personal conscious self should be considered merely as its reflection, its projection, into the field of the personality.

Using our analogy of the cinema, the spiritual Self corresponds to the source of the light, the lamp, which projects the white light upon the screen. On this diagram this relationship is indicated by the point of consciousness, which is connected by a dotted line(representing the de­scending ray or thread) with the star indicating our spiritual Self. This diagram helps us to reconcile two facts which at first appear to contradict and exclude one another.

First- The apparent duality, the apparent existence of two selves in us. Indeed, practically it is as if there were two selves, because the nor­mal self generally ignores the other, both actually and theoretically, even to the point of denying its existence; and the other, the true Self is latent and does not reveal itself directly to our consciousness. 

Second- The real unity and uniqueness of the Self. There are not really two selves, two independent and separate entities. The Self is one; only it manifests itself in different degrees of consciousness and self-realization. The reflection is distinct from the luminous source, but has no reality by itself, no true and autonomous substantiality; it is not a new and different light.

• THE COLLECTIVE UNCONSCIOUS.

Human beings are not isolated, they are not “monads without win­dows” as Leibnitz thought. They can feel at times subjectively isolated but the extreme existentialistic conception is not true, either psycho­logically or spiritually. The outer line of the oval should be considered as “delimiting,” not as “dividing;” it should be considered to be analogous to the membrane delimiting a cell, which requires a constant and active interchange of vital fluids with the whole body to which the cell belongs. Processes of psychological and spiritual “osmosis” are going all the time, both with other human beings and with the general psychic en­vironment. The latter corresponds to what Jung has called the “collecti­ve unconscious,” but he has not clearly defined this term, in which he includes elements of different, even opposite nature, namely primitive archaic structures and higher, prospective activities of a superconscious character.^[xxvi] In my opinion, the same distinctions of function and of value at the various levels of psycho-spiritual reality exist and should be recognized outside, as well as inside, the individual.

This conception of the structure of our being, while it includes, co-ordinates and arranges in an integral vision all the data obtained through various observations and experiences, permits of a wider and more comprehensive understanding of the human drama, of the conflicts and the problems that confront each one of us; it indicates the means of their solution: the way of liberation.

A spiritual psychology, such as I have briefly and inadequately outlined, is in full accord both with the inner experience of philosophic-religious men and women and with the tenets of religious philosophy. A clear confirmation of this harmony has been given by Evelyn Underhill in her admirable and classical study on Mysticism:^[xxvii]

The divine nucleus, the point of contact between man’s life and the divine life in which it is immersed and sustained, has been given many names in the course of the development of mystical doctrine. All clearly mean the same thing, though emphasizing different aspects of its life. Sometimes it is called the Syntheresis,^[xxviii] the keeper or preserver of his being: sometimes the Spark of the Soul, the Fünklein of the German mystics: sometimes its Apex, the point at which it touches the heavens. Then, with a sudden flight to the other end of the symbolic scale, and in order to emphasize its participation with pure Being, rather than its diffe­rence from mere nature, it is called the Ground of the Soul, the foun­dation or basal stuff indwelt by God, whence springs all spiritual life . . . Here, at any rate, whatever name we may choose to give it, is the organ of man’s spiritual consciousness; the place where he meets the Absolute, the germ of his life . . . The experience of such a “sense,” such an integral part or function of the complete human being, has been affirmed and dwelt upon not only by the mystics, but by seers and teachers of all times and creeds: by Egypt, Greece, and India, the poets, the fakirs, the philosophers, and the saints. A belief of its actuality is the pivot of the Christian posi­tion: indeed of every religion worthy of the name. It is the foundation and justification of mysticism, asceticism, the whole machinery of the self-renouncing life. That there is an extreme point at which man’s nature touches the Absolute: that his ground, or substance, his true being, is penetrated by the Divine Life which constitutes the underlying reality of things; this is the basis on which the whole mystic claim of possible union with God must rest. Here, they say, is our link with reality; and in this place alone can be celebrated the “marriage from which the Lord comes.”^[xxix]

To use another of their diagrams, it is thanks to the existence within him of this Spark from the central life, that man is implicitly a “child of the infinite”. The mystic way must therefore be a life, a discipline, which will so alter the constituents of his mental life as to include this spark within the conscious field, bring it out of the hiddenness, from those deep levels where it sustains and guides his normal existence, and make it the dominant element round which his personality is arranged. The revolu­tion in which this is effected begins with the New Birth, which has been described under other terms by Rudolph Eucken, as the indispensable pre­liminary of an “independent spiritual life” in man. ^[xxx]

Thus spiritual psychology, in affirming the existence of a super- conscious region or sphere and of the Spiritual Self in man, finds a confirmation in religious philosophy and in its turn gives to this an independent corroboration which I think it should welcome.

But, as a science, spiritual psychology does not go beyond that point. All that concerns the further relationships between the Spiritual Self and God, the Supreme, the ultimate Reality, lies outside its scope, being the realm of religious philosophy and of theology. Therefore spiritual psychology is, and should be, neutral towards the various theological doctrines and the various religions institutions, unless these make claims conflicting with ascertained facts.

At this point I believe that you may be interested to hear some­thing about the special relationships existing, or that can established, between the spiritual psychology which I have outlined and the Jewish religion.

I think that considering the matter quite impartially and objecti­vely we may be justified in saying that Judaism finds itself, at least in certain respects, in a position of advantage compared with that of other religions.

Its harmony with science in general, and with spiritual psycho­logy in particular, is easier and can become fuller. Judaism has not the problem of theological dogmas and of their adjustment to modern scientific discoveries and to modern thought. Judaism sets no priests and intermediaries between man and God.

Besides this absence of obstacles, there is in Judaism a central principle which is in perfect accordance with the recognition of the Spiri­tual Self in man. The statement found in the Bible that man was created in the image of God evidently refers, (if we do not believe in a childish way that God has arms and legs) to the true inner man, that is, to the Spiritual Self or Soul.

In this sense that statement can be fully accepted by the most modern scientific mind, and it can and should urge us to realize our spi­ritual dignity and our high possibility to enter into daily communion with the living God.

This religious position is particularly that of Liberal Judaism, and it has been formulated with admirable lucidity by Dr. Claude Montefiore:^[xxxi]

Whatever the original meaning may have been of the Biblical state­ment that “man was created in the image of God,” it is commonly inter­preted by modern Jews of all schools to signify that the human spirit has some likeness to the divine spirit . . . In some way. . . human goodness and human reason contain a touch of the Divine, and this touch gives us the possibility of knowing and worshiping and coming in contact with God. . . The essence and validity of religion depends upon the belief that there is a living and active relationship between God and man.^[xxxii]

Dr. Montefiore had also clearly realized the psychological aspect of the problem we are considering and although, with the humility which was one of his many virtues he disclaims being competent in the field of psychology, he says some things which are quite in accordance with the conclusions of spiritual psychology:

Directly, we begin to speak of the Divine Spirit as operating in man. We trench upon the province of psychology . . . We speak of man’s higher and lower nature, of the spirit warring the flesh, of duty at conflict with desire. I assume and believe that all these rough phrases answer more or less inaccurately to some complex reality . . . (I do not know) what faculties are active in man when he lifts up his soul in prayer . . . The terminology we use is not of much practical importance so long as . . . we hold to the doctrine that there is a real influence of God upon man, which is conditioned and made possible by the divine element “within man.”^[xxxiii]

Finally Montefiore has well indicated the dual action made possible by the intimate relationship between man and God. He writes, 

We do believe that the divine element in us can be quickened and stimulated partly by our own effort and partly by the grace of God.^[xxxiv]

This brings us back directly to the general theme of this lecture and precisely to the particular usefulness of spiritual psychology, to the great help which can give to understand in a right way and to handle effectively the various crises connected with man’s spiritual life.

As I have described in my study Spiritual Development and Nervous Diseases^[xxxv] there are:

1. The crises proceeding the spiritual awakening, or conversion. These are often very serious and can bring at times those who suffer from them to the verge of suicide.
2. The crises determined by the spiritual awakening, when the mind is not balanced or the emotions are uncontrolled, or when the on­rush of spiritual energy is overwhelming.
3. The reactions to the spiritual awakening. The influx of the spiritual light and love is rhythmical as are all vital and psycho­logical processes; therefore that inflow sooner or later is followed by an ebb and this fact can be hard to bear and causes various troubles.
4. The phases of the processes of transmutation. A true and dyna­mic religious life which aims at a progressive spiritual realization, at a growing union with God, requires an increasing transmutation and regeneration of the personality. This is a long and many sided process, including phases of active purification and phases of reception and assimilation of the down pouring forces.
5. There is then the mysterious inner experience called “the dark night of the soul,” which constitutes the last, but most severe and painful test proceeding the full spiritual realization.

All these crises are apt to, and often do produce many kinds of nervous and psychological troubles and also physical symptoms. Such troubles may appear to be very similar to those which affect ordinary patients, but their causes and significance are very different, in a sense quite opposite, and the treatment must be correspondingly different.

The symptoms of ordinary patients have generally a regressive character and the treatment must aim at helping them to reach the normal state of average men or women or, when possible, to a measure of harmonious inte­gration of the conscious and unconscious elements of their personality — that is, what can be called a personal psychosynthesis.

Instead the symptoms produced by the stress and strife of spiritual development have a specific progressive character. They are the outcome of conflicts and maladjustments between the personality and the inflowing higher energies. In these cases a higher and more inclusive spiritual psychosynthesis is required.

It is clear, therefore, that the treatment suitable for the first group proves not only unsatisfactory but often definitely harmful for the patients of the second group. Their lot is hard if they fall into the hands of a doctor who does not realize the nature and value of the reli­gious urge, who does not understand the vicissitudes on the path of spiri­tual development.

On the other hand, a doctor who has had personal religious experience or who at least has made an adequate study of those experiences and has taken an appreciative attitude towards them, can be of great help, apply­ing an adequate treatment in the various phases of the patient’s spiritual crises.

In concluding this rapid survey, I hope to have succeeded in showing that the relationships between psychology and religion are gradually be­coming closer and more harmonious; that not only the present cultural climate is favorable for an increasing cooperation between psychologists and psychiatrists on the one side and ministers of all religions on the other, but that such cooperation is necessary in order to solve the in­ner problems of modern men and women.

Therefore I shall end by expressing the heartfelt wish and hope that psychologists and religious leaders may more and more understand, appreciate and supplement each other. Thus both groups will be able better to help those who search and suffer, to achieve self-knowledge and communion with God.

^[i] French: “plain and simple.” —Ed.

^[ii] Friedrich Lange (1828-1875), German philosopher and sociologist, an early phenomenologist who, along with Ernst Mach, proposed “psychology without soul” in order to abandon the old metaphysics of “substance” in dealing with the philosophical mind-body problem (from abstract of an article in Nietzsche and the Problem of Subjectivity by Pietro Gori). —Ed. 

^[iii] James Henry Leuba (1868-1946) was a Swiss-born American psychologist best known for his work on the psychology of religion. An atheist, he argued for a “naturalistic” treatment of religion, which he considered necessary of religious psychology was to be studied scientifically. —Ed.

^[iv] Émile Durkheim (1858-1917) was a French sociologist, considered one of the architects of modern social science. His approach to social science was a refinement of the positivism of Comte, aiming at completely objective and impersonal observation. He asserted that religion had purely social origins and functions. —Ed.

^[v] Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), the founder of psychoanalysis, wrote The Future of An Illusion in 1927, arguing in it that religion is a false belief system, an illusion based upon wishes that have no basis in reality. —Ed.

^[vi] Basil A. Yeaxlee (1883-1967), was a British writer and editor who was deeply involved in adult education and religious education. Among his works were Lifelong Education and Spiritual Values in Adult Education. —Ed.

^[vii] Yeaxlee, Religion and the Growing Mind (London. Nisbet, 1939), p.6. —Author’s note.

^[viii] A digital copy of this work can be downloaded at http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/j/james/william/varieties/complete.html —Ed.

^[ix] William McDougall (1871-1938) was a psychologist in the UK and US. His Body and Mind: A History and Defense of Animism supported a Lamarckian version of evolution in which mind guides evolution; his concept of animism was that all matter has a mental aspect or animating principle. —Ed.

^[x] William Brown (1881-1952) British psychologist and psychiatrist. —Ed.

^[xi] Eric Graham Howe (d.1975) was a British psychologist, known for his book Cure or heal? A Study of Therapeutic Experience (1965) that exerted a profound influence on later thinkers and psychologists. —Ed.

^[xii] William Herbert Sheldon, Jr. (1898-1977) was an American psychologist who studied under Jung for a time, who wrote books on human physique, temperament, and will. —Ed.

^[xiii] Henry Charles Link (1889-1952) was an American psychologist who worked in industry and government, who served for a time in the Psychological Corp. to make psychological findings available to business and to fund research, His book The Return to Religion (1936) became a best-seller. —Ed.

^[xiv] Erich Fromm (1900-1980) was a psychologist and philosopher who became an American after fleeing the Nazis in Germany. He was known as a member of the “neo-Freudian” school of psychoanalytical thought. Central to his world view was his interpretation of the Talmud and Hasidism. He was the author of Escape from Freedom, Man for Himself, and The Art of Loving. —Ed.

^[xv] Paul Tournier (1898-1986) was a Swiss physician and author who gained a wide audience for his work on pastoral counseling. He was the pioneer of person-centered psychotherapy and believed that therapy should also have a spiritual dimension. He was founder of the Paul Tournier Institute. —Ed.

^[xvi] Alphonse Maeder (1882-1971) was a Swiss physician and psychiatrist who worked with Bleuler, Jung and Freud. He broke with Freud after the latter criticized what he called Maeder’s “mystical tendencies.” He wrote books and articles on personal and spiritual development. —Ed.

^[xvii] Pierre Bovet (1878-1965) was a Swiss psychologist and teacher. —Ed.

^[xviii] Rudolf von Urban (1879-1964) was an Austrian psychologist and psychiatrist, author of numerous works on psychoanalysis and sexuality. —Ed.

^[xix] Sante De Sanctis (1862-1935) was an Italian physician, considered one of the founders of Italian psychology and pediatric psychiatry.—Ed.

^[xx] Brown, William, Mind, Medicine and Metapsychics, Oxford University Press, 1946. —Author’s Note.

^[xxi] C.G. Jung, Modern Man in Search of a Soul, New York, Harcourt Brace, 1933. Taken directly from the version published in English — Ed.

^[xxii] Rev. Oskar Pfister (1873-1956) was a Swiss Lutheran minister and lay psychoanalyst, founder of the Swiss Society for Psychoanalysis, and author of several books on theology and psychology. —Ed.

^[xxiii] Joshua L. Liebman (1907-1948) was an American reform rabbi and best-selling author of Peace of Mind: Insights on Human Nature That Can change Your Life (1946). —Ed.

^[xxiv] Rochedieu’s book Psychologie et vie religieuse [Psychology and Religious Life](1948) was considered by one French reviewer as a “rehabilitation of religious psychology” from the dogmatism of Karl Barth. —Ed.

^[xxv] The Guild of Pastoral Psychology was founded in the UK in 1937, with C.G. Jung as its patron, originally to encourage the study of psychology among clergy and other spiritual leaders. —Ed.

^[xxvi] See Jung, Two Essays on Analytical Psychology (London, Balliere Tindall and Cox, 1928) p. 119. —Author’s Note.

^[xxvii] The following extended quotation from Underhill’s Mysticism is corrected to the first edition. —Ed.

^[xxviii] An interesting discussion of the term “Syntheresis” will be found in Dr. Inge’s “Christian Mysticism”, Appendix C, pp. 359-360. —Author’s (Underhill’s) Note.

^[xxix] Tauler, Sermon on St. Augustine (The Inner Way, p. 162). —Author’s (Underhill’s) Note.

^[xxx] “Der Sinn und Wert des Lebens”, p. 146. See also, Pt. 1., Cap. V. —Author’s (Underhill’s) Note. 

 E. UNDERHILL. Mysticism, pp. 64- 66. —Author’s (Assagioli’s) Note.

^[xxxi] Claude Joseph Goldsmid Montefiore, (1858–1938) was the intellectual founder of Anglo-Liberal Judaism and the founding president of the World Union for Progressive Judaism, a scholar of the Hebrew Bible, rabbinic literature and New Testament. He was a significant figure in the contexts of modern Jewish religious thought, Jewish-Christian relations, and Anglo-Jewish socio-politics, and educator. Montefiore was President of the Anglo-Jewish Association and an influential anti-Zionist leader, who co-founded the anti-Zionist League of British Jews in 1917. —Ed.

^[xxxii] Montefiore, Liberal Judaism and Hellenism and Other Essays (1918) pp. 23-24. —Author’s Note.

^[xxxiii] Ibid. pp. 28-29 —Author’s Note.

^[xxxiv] Ibid. p. 164 —Author’s Note.

^[xxxv] Published under the title “Spiritual Development and Neuro-Psychological Disturbances” as Chapter 10 in Part Two of the book Transpersonal Development, Smiling Wisdom edition, Inner Way Productions, 2007. —Ed.

^[i] The original of this document is an English-language typed transcript of a lecture, with hand-written corrections by the author. The date of its writing is unknown. Editor’s interpolations are indicated in [brackets]. The elisions indicated by . . . appear in the original document. A German-language of this essay, titled Psychologie und Religion, is found as Doc.#22950 in the Assagioli Archives. —Ed.