1
The Journey Emerges
In the midst of researching Chinese alchemy for another project, I came across a remarkable story concerning Chinggis Khan (1162â1227 ce), commonly known as Genghis Khan,1 and his meeting with a Taoist priest, Châang-Châun (1148â1227 ce) in the year 1222 ce.2 Exploring this story revealed that as well as being a brutal warrior, Chinggis Khan was quite spiritual and at around the age of 60 years, over a period of approximately 1 year, carried on several dialogues with the older priest. The nature of the dialogues will be discussed in depth in a subsequent chapter; however, the following exchange is an example of what drew me to investigate their story.
January 1223 ce: A question posed by Chinggis Khan to Châang-Châun, a Taoist priest.
CHINGGIS KHAN: What is the reason for âcalamities such as earthquakes, thunder and so on?â
CHâANG-CHâUN: I have heard that in order to avoid the wrath of Heaven you [Chinggis Khan] forbid your countrymen to bathe in rivers during the summer, wash their clothes, make fresh felt or gather mushrooms in the fields. But this is not the way to serve Heaven. It is said that of the three thousand sins the worst is ill treatment of oneâs father and mother. Now in this respect I believe your subjects to be gravely at fault and it would be well if your Majesty would use your influence to reform them. This pleased the Khan and he said: âHoly Immortal, your words are exceedingly true; such is indeed my own belief,â and he bade those who were present write them down in Uighur characters.3
That people are capable of demonstrating seemingly opposite traits such as being a ruthless conqueror as well as honoring a devout spiritual practice, has been explored by depth psychologists such as C.G. Jung, Marie-Louise Von Franz, Lionel Corbett, and James Hillman, to name a few. Despite my own work in depth psychology in which I was well versed regarding the complexities of psyche, I was perplexed. As I attempted to make sense of the reality of who Chinggis Khan was, I found myself bumping against the idea of evil in light of the terror and killing he wrought. This work became especially pertinent to me considering I was also struggling to understand overwhelming current problems such as the Trump phenomenon, rampant homelessness in wealthy countries, the horror of human trafficking, the need for ongoing dialogue and healing regarding the history of slavery in the United States, the persistent climate of misogyny, and the seemingly deliberate and uncaring damage to our planet. In my lower moments, I felt as if the world had become significantly unbalanced toward the side of evil.
My questions regarding the nature of evil also included answering why several rather ordinary young people have been not only attracted to terrorist groups, but have participated in brutal killings.4 Likewise, how can Saydnaya prison in Syria, known for egregious atrocities and genocide, exist in 2018?5 Genocide is not relegated solely to the early history of humankind but occurs in the present. Rwanda, Srebrenica (Bosnia), and Syria are stark reminders of societies mired in evil and chaos.6 I found myself compelled to look at the nature of evil.
J.B. Russell considers evil to be more pervasive than that suffered by humans, but something experienced by all living things. For example, he asks whether trees suffer when they are ripped from the ground and argues the Judeo-Christian idea of the world being given to man has led to the profound exploitation of our planet.7 Pope Francis wrote eloquently on the need for changing humankindâs relationship with our planet in his 2015 Encyclical, Laudato Si.8
In the words of this beautiful canticle, Saint Francis of Assisi reminds us that our common home is like a sister with whom we share our life and a beautiful mother who opens her arms to embrace us ⊠This sister now cries out to us because of the harm we have inflicted on her by our irresponsible use and abuse of the goods with which God has endowed her. We have come to see ourselves as her lords and masters, entitled to plunder her at will. The violence present in our hearts, wounded by sin, is also reflected in the symptoms of sickness evident in the soil, in the water, in the air and in all forms of life. This is why the earth herself, burdened and laid waste, is among the most abandoned and maltreated of our poor; she âgroans in travailâ (Rom 8:22). We have forgotten that we ourselves are dust of the earth (cf. Gen 2:7); our very bodies are made up of her elements, we breathe her air and we receive life and refreshment from her waters. ⊠Nothing in this world is indifferent to us.9
Pope Francis is pointed as he writes, âThese situations have caused sister earth, along with all the abandoned of our world, to cry out, pleading that we take another course.â10 C.G. Jung echoes this lament when he wrote about the ongoing development of consciousness alongside humankindâs increasingly inflated ego.
At the end of the second millennium the outlines of a universal catastrophe became apparent, at first in the form of a threat to consciousness. This threat consists in giantismâin other words, a hubris of consciousnessâin the assertion: âNothing is greater than man and his deeds.â11
Jung lists instances of evil that are shared by many in modern times, a stressful litany of the horrors wrought by the human species, similar to what I noted above. Yet, Jung also warns us that in order to manage evil, we must take care to avoid thinking of good and evil as âabsolute opposites,â12 meaning terms that can be defined with no ambiguity. Throughout this book we will see that taking a black and white stance regarding our thinking about evil is far too simplistic.
In this introductory chapter, I explain how the Chinggis Khan story triggered my research into evil. I also include a few biographical notes concerning Khanâs life to provide historical context. Finally, I outline and discuss the way I went about my attempt to understand evil. I wondered how I might make sense of evil perpetrated by our ancestors hoping those events were relegated to ancient history, but knowing differently. It seems modern humankind is heading in such a destructive direction that blaming evil on a stereotype of unenlightened ancestors was not valid. My initial questions regarding the Châang-ChâunâChinggis Khan dialogues were stirring up much more than I had expected. What emerged is that my exploration about the dialogues was going to require much deeper research if I hoped to be able to answer my questions satisfactorily. Therefore, before beginning my investigation into the nature of evil, it was important to place the story of Chinggis Khan in context. The following is not an extensive history but a brief introduction that provides some insight into the protagonists as well as their cultural background.
Chinggis Khan: a devastating conqueror emerges
In order to better understand Chinggis Khan, a brief biographical narrative sheds light on his later actions. It is derived from a translation of the historical narrative by Francis Woodman Cleaves titled, The Secret History of the Mongols: For the First Time Done into English Out of the Original Tongue.13 The History was written about two years after Khanâs death and followed a circuitous route to finally being translated into English. Joseph Fletcherâs and Jack Weatherfordâs works on Mongol culture have also been vital for trying to understand Chinggis Khanâs and Châang-Châunâs place in history.14
Chinggis Khan began life with the name TemĂŒÇ°in in the year 1162 ce. That Thomas Ă Becket became the Archbishop of Canterbury the same year may help the reader place this event in the context of Western medieval history. TemĂŒÇ°in (Chinggis Khan) was named after a fierce warrior who had been defeated in battle by his father, YesĂŒgei Baâatur.15 When he was nine years old, TemĂŒÇ°in and his father traveled to cement his betrothal to a girl from another family. Along the way, father and son met one of their own family members who told YesĂŒgei Baâatur that he had dreamt of a white gyrfalcon who held the sun and moon in his talons.16 This appeared to be a good omen for the betrothal to Börte (ten years old) who was said to have been a maiden, âWith light in her face, with fire in her eyesâ17 which at a later time, was the same description her own father applied to TemĂŒÇ°in who was left behind to live with Börteâs family. Although it was expected that someone of TemĂŒÇ°inâs age could be left with a new family, YesĂŒgei Baâatur requested that the prospective father-in-law, Dei SeÄen, would guard TemĂŒÇ°in from dogs which frightened the young boy.
In an act of hubris, while traveling home from Börteâs family, YesĂŒgei Baâatur came upon Tatar people celebrating a feast. As it turned out, the people were those whom he had earlier âspoiledâ18 (raided). Nevertheless, YesĂŒgei Baâatur asked for food and drink which they were happy to provide, although in a not so subtle act of revenge, his food was also poisoned. Arriving home close to death, YesĂŒgei Baâatur sent a message for TemĂŒÇ°in to return home and then he subsequently died. Upon YesĂŒgei Baâaturâs death his wife, HöâelĂŒn ĂÇ°in, was shunned by the community which may have been a way to diminish the potential leadership of her sons. The family were basically abandoned and left behind, something that would haunt TemĂŒÇ°in throughout his life. An elderly man, Old Man Äaraqa tried to intervene with the tribe but was literally stabbed in the back with a spear. The relationship between TemĂŒÇ°in and Old Man Äaraqa is unclear in the History but his death is reported to have devastated TemĂŒÇ°in. However, the family was able to navigate tribal life and TemĂŒÇ°in thrived as he grew into the future legendary warrior.
As an adolescent, and no stranger to violence, the History records that two older brothers stole a fish from TemĂŒÇ°in and another brother, Qasar. The two boys complained to their mother, HöâelĂŒn ĂÇ°in, who admonished all the brothers, invoking the negative consequences of past incidents when families did not remain loyal to each other; family ties were critical in Mongol culture. An anecdote that Chinggis Khan related to his own sons many years later illustrates this. The story was passed down through the family where it was said a mother gathered her five sons and handed them each one arrow. She ordered them to break the arrow in half. This was done easily. She then gave them each five arrows with the same direction to break them except in this case, the arrows were bundled together which made the task impossible. The lesson was clear regarding strength in numbers and the need to be loyal to the family unit.
Regarding the stolen fish, TemĂŒÇ°in and Qasar did not listen to their mother or heed her wisdom. They prepared to ambush their older brother, Begter, who upon becoming aware of the two boys, admonished them, but to no avail. TemĂŒÇ°in and Qasar shot their brother with arrows and killed him. HöâelĂŒn ĂÇ°in was furious and shouted at them that they had destroyed the very thing that could keep the family strong, a united front. She used a Mongol saying: âYe have no companion other than [your] shadow; Ye have no whip other than a tail.â19 Isolation from oneâs family or tribe in nomadic culture, especially living in the harsh conditions on the Steppe, could result in death. The History states, âshe [HöâelĂŒn] was exceedingly displeased with her sons.â20 Thus, we begin to gain some understanding about the character of this future Mongol ruler.
The Mongol spiritual tradition traces far back in history but was directly related to earlier steppe tribes such as the Tatars, Uighurs, and the Huns.21 Several steppe tribes left records of their history carved into hundreds of stones scattered throughout the land. The oldest carvings were of animals and people; written language came later. Weatherford argues that TemĂŒÇ°in would have been familiar with the messages left on the stones, analyzed their...