These are thoughts I posted on the old Ken Wilber Forum in response to my friend Andy Plath (1963-1999) asking for my definition of "archetypal possession". It seems highly appropriate to include the post here.

Hi Andy,

Well...there's a lot of disagreement about "archetypes", and any explanation would depend on what the words "archetype" and "possession" mean to you. So I'll give you my own quick n' nasty version (which derives from Jung's ideas), and you can take it from there!

The archetypes are unconscious reality-organizing factors, spontaneously generated by nature to impose order and design and purpose upon the chaotic energies of manifestation.

As such, they have had the effect of influencing and controlling the immature and unformed consciousness of human beings -- especially at the prehistorical and early stages of civilization.

For instance, Sumeria and Mesopotamia, and even ancient Egypt, were clearly manifestations of the civilizing and ordering influence of archetypes in human affairs.

Archetypes aren't "good" or "bad", per se...their ethical quality has more to do with whatever relationship arises between them and the ego (or conscious mind), than with inherency. Archetypes are neither light nor dark, but almost always include both qualities at once, in varying degrees.

Possession: We have all heard of "demonic possession", as in The Exorcist or in voodoo, or even in Hinduism and other religions, where one can be "taken over" by a god or goddess.

Just so, "archetypal possession" is like that -- the conscious mind is set aside (or falls into a fugue state) and the unconscious archetype comes forth and freely expresses itself, essentially overwhelming the conscious mind.

What happens to the ego (or the ordinary consciousness) in these cases? Quite often the ego is pushed to a place apart, where it sits and enjoys the spectacle of being invaded by a "power". The ego will suffer greatly, for having allowed itself to be "ridden" by an archetype...but for the moment there may be a feeling of superiority -- and thus "inflation".

This is a huge subject, BTW -- there are so many aspects to it. For instance there are benign and helpful forms of archetypal possession. (One thinks of Edgar Cayce or Jane Roberts...or even General Patton possessed by the warrior archetype. A benign sexual archetype keeps humanity producing children, no matter what the conscious situation is.)

Even so, who would want to "stand aside" and let something huge and powerful "walk in" from the Deep Psyche...or from the Divine?

Well, it happens...and when it happens, shit happens.

There are certain signs that point to archetypal possession (as opposed to a real integration and transformation of the archetypal energies). One of them is haughtiness and pomposity. For some reason those who suffer the inflation of an archetype almost always lose the quality of humility and start "lording it over" whoever will sit still for it. The quality of real compassion that is a large part of our humanity, goes right out the window...because real humanity has gone right out the window -- having been replaced by an archetype.

Buddha is about the inspection, penetration, and transcendence of the archetypes. Buddhism in its purest form is about the absolute negation of archetypal possession as a spiritual path. (Buddha dispenses with everything that gives form to awareness, including the sense of "infinite formless space" itself.]

Christ too is about Realization through sacrificing the "old gods" of Rome and the archetypal possession of the Emperors. (Christ is also about the transformation of Yahweh, the angry father-God, into pure Spirit, or Self-Realization.)

Franklin Jones/Adi Da, on the other hand, is about the return of the old gods and of the days when the frowning archetypes ruled the earth. In my opinion, "Da" is a "walk-in", a spirit who pushed aside the original karmic inhabitant of the bodily vehicle "Franklin Jones". Franklin the man allowed this, in a moment of weakness, in a moment of inflation, in a moment of pride, in a moment of wanting to be a Guru...and in a moment of breaking his connection to his humanity. (cf, the dream of severing the umbilical that connected him to the two boys in the first edition of The Knee of Listening. The terrifying psychological experiences and the "mystical" experiences he describes in that book are of the same kind -- they represent a rather willful surrendering to possession by an archetype. Even his moment of "enlightenment" in the Vedanta Temple is presented as an experience of possession.)

Franklin got his wish to be "God-Realized"...but at what a price.

In my view, we have to understand that when we read an essay like "I Am the Divine Self-Emergence", we are reading a communication from an archetype -- not from a human mind. And that's when we need to know how to relate to and deal with archetypes -- for inspite of all their pomposity and "airs", the archetypes are of a lower order than Man.

hope that helps,

love n' kisses,