Personal experience of the sacred does not depend on doctrine, dogma, or sacred texts, and it may actually contradict the authority of organized religion. For example, Father Tom had been a traditional priest for many years, although never quite happy with the Church. During a period in which he was questioning his vocation, he had the following numinous dream:
I am Melchizedek. A radiant, blue image of the Venus of Willendorf looms over me. The Goddess is five times larger than I am. I am holding a chalice up to her left breast, and milk is flowing into the chalice. I am deeply aware that I am in the presence of something intensely holy.
This numinous dream had an electric effect on Father Tom. Since he was a Biblical scholar, he knew that Melchizedek was the high priest who blessed Abraham.7 According to tradition, Melchizedek became a priest by divine appointment, long before Moses’ brother Aaron was appointed high priest for the Israelites wandering in the wilderness; his exact origins are unknown, but his name means “King of Righteousness.” In the dream, the dreamer is given this name as a title, as if to reassure him that he need not worry about his vocation because the priesthood he belongs to is of a truly ancient line—one could say that his priestly vocation came from the soul, not from the Church.
A dream such as this carries its own authority because of its emotional power. Father Tom realized that he had not been happy in the Church because it did not sufficiently recognize the feminine aspect of the divine. The dream tells him that the milk of the Goddess—her nourishment— is sacramental to him. He realized that he had been trying to force-fit his spirituality into the Church’s official container, but in fact what was truly sacred to him was highly personal. The dream tells him that the divine appears to him in a feminine form that is much older than the God-images of the Bible. The Venus of Willendorf is one of the oldest religious images known to us, dating back to about 20, 000 B.C.E., when the Goddess was understood to be the source of life. Clearly, this dream does not fit with traditional Church teaching. But it is typical for numinous experiences to disregard traditional norms, especially when the experience is relevant only to the concerns of a particular individual. Numinous experience allows us to discover our authentic spirituality by giving us a personal symbol of the sacred, in contrast to collective symbols such as the cross.
In this case, the numinosum appeared by means of a dream. According to Jung, such a dream does not arise from the personal levels of the mind. The psyche can be thought of as analogous to an iceberg. The visible tip of the iceberg represents the personal field of consciousness that we call the ego, or the sense of “me.” Below that is the personal unconscious, which consists of experiences that are unique to the individual, such as events from childhood that are too painful or traumatic to recall. Deeper still, a transpersonal or archetypal level of consciousness links us all. Jung called this level the collective unconscious or the autonomous psyche. However, it is important to immediately note that the personal and the transpersonal aspects of the psyche do not exist in discrete layers, but are intimately and inextricably intertwined. (See Chapter 2 for a fuller discussion of the structure of the psyche.)
Jung theorized that numinous dreams, such as Father Tom’s, arise from the autonomous psyche. Father Tom’s dream is then the modern equivalent of the dreams that Biblical writers believed were sent by God. Examples are Joseph’s dream that Mary had conceived by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:20) and the dream that told Joseph to flee to Egypt because King Herod was about to destroy the baby Jesus (Matt. 2:13). The notion of the dream as divinely created for the dreamer has faded within the Judeo-Christian tradition,8 but numinous dreams still occur with astonishing regularity. They give us the impression of a larger Intelligence that has its own message for the dreamer.
I hope it is clear, in both this dream and in the examples that follow, that numinous experience is often specifically relevant to the psychology of the individual who experiences it. Such specificity, although striking, is not necessarily proof that the experience arises from a transpersonal dimension of the psyche, since it can be argued that the personal psyche could produce the necessary imagery in an attempt at self-healing. A prior spiritual commitment might make us interpret a numinous event in terms of contact with the transcendent, while people who do not have a religious outlook on life might see such an event purely as one’s own inner voice, a manifestation of the personal unconscious.9 However, every aspect of the psyche contains both personal and transpersonal elements, and a rigid separation between them is impossible. It is therefore not surprising that a numinous experience would contain features of both. To argue that numinous experience arises purely from within one’s own psyche makes an artificial distinction that ignores Jung’s insistence that an element of the divine is located deep within our subjectivity. For Jung, unlike for Rudolf Otto, the divine is not wholly Other, because there is no sharp distinction between a transcendent divinity and what Jung refers to as the Self, an innate image of the divine. This level, which is the core of our being, is the ultimate source of numinous experience.
Given that a debate exists about the extent to which a numinous experience provides adequate reason for believing in a transcendent realm, it seems that the choice of whether to accept a spiritual or a non-spiritual understanding of numinous experience depends on which of these explanations feels most in keeping with one’s own psychology. My personal commitment is to agree with Otto and Jung10 that spontaneous numinous experience is a real seat of faith. Such experience feels as if it arises from the transpersonal unconscious, which is the reason Jung claims that the psyche has an “authentic religious function.”11 Here we must bear in mind that we do not know the nature of the unconscious; this word only means that aspect of the psyche that is unknown to us.